Talk:Asynchronous multi-body framework

Hello, I think the article is well written and provides a good insight on the described framework. I have corrected some small typos and I have added an "external links" section, with a link to a thesis that has been developed with this framework. --Lavalec (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your help in imporving the article! Elisa191996 (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * What the body of asynchronous 49.145.15.104 (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments
Hi!,

In the titles of the sections and within the body I would say to keep just the first letter of some keywords in upper case.

Would be great if you add a brief link or explanation to 'afObject' and similars.

Another idea, since this is an article on a very specific software, you could add a list of sensors, or robots that are actually implemented.

Regarding the use of acronyms: I would say to avoid them if possible. Since we have a lot of space to write, the text would become more readable, without continuously jumping back to the definition. I think this is even more true for people that are new to this software or field.

In general, I would suggest citing as many sentences as possible, but in this case, I understand that is hard to do that.

Finally remark about the use of the word 'client' with Python. I'm coming from the computer science field, and it is rare to see the expression client related to 'simple' software. The concept 'client' is more related to the concept of client-server communication and I think this is not the case. I suggest using the word 'library' instead. I didn't change that because I don't if is correct what I am saying and maybe it is just my point of view.

thank you for your contribution. --EdoardoRamalli (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! First of all thanks for the suggestions! I will keep them in mind.

Anyway, I didn't want to enter to much in details in order not to write an "instruction manual" but maybe I can go a bit deeper!

About the Python Client, the definition is right but thanks for your concern! Elisa191996 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from another review
I agree with the points presented by EdoardoRamalli and I add here a few other points.

--Mirko Salaris (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article largely relies on a single source, comprising the GitHub pages and the article published by the developers, with no independent source available. Furthermore, there are multiple claims that, considering the poor references, do not comply with the neutrality of Wikipedia (e.g., "much easier compared to any other simulator")
 * The article is generally well written and well structured. I fixed most of the English issues and typos but I advise a thorough revision, maybe using some writing software.

Yes, I'm aware about the lack of documentation but still I think it is a usefull topic to write about! I'll try to keep the article as neutral as possible. Thanks for the suggestion. Elisa191996 (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)