4 ms·

I'm not sure I understand why even a truly obscure programming language article should ever be deleted; it's not like Wikipedia is running low on paper. If Odin

I'm not sure I understand why even a truly obscure programming language article should ever be deleted; it's not like Wikipedia is running low on paper. If Odin ceased all development tomorrow it would be good to have some record of what it was. For the record, I like Odin. (On homebrew it appears to have been downloaded 6,707 in the past year. Compare to:) zig: 71,565 rust: 304,405 golang: 1,246,300 malbogle: 9

fwipsy 3mo ago
The point of Wikipedia is to be accurate, not complete. Wikipedia does not want to just trust the developers of $ObscureLang to maintain their own wikipedia page. So, the existence of the $ObscureLang page (and, in the aggregate, many similar pages) imposes a maintenance burden on Wikipedia. Better to say nothing than to risk saying something inaccurate.
- greyface- 3mo ago
  > The point of Wikipedia is to be accurate, not complete The point of Wikipedia is to be verifiable, not accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_t...
  - fwipsy 3mo ago
    "That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy." Verifiable, in addition to accurate. Not "not accurate."
miguel_martin 3mo ago
fwiw, I think a lot of people just clone odin and build it via `./build_odin.sh release` on MacOS (at least, I do). The compiler builds in ~20s
pwdisswordfishq 3mo ago
> it's not like Wikipedia is running low on paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Wikipedia_should_be_about_everything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_i...