5 ms·

> find a description of Nimrod in some standard source—textbook, survey article, etc. No offense, but are you even aware what you're saying? You just limited W

> find a description of Nimrod in some standard source—textbook, survey article, etc. No offense, but are you even aware what you're saying? You just limited Wikipedia to describe only those new languages which come from academia and have research on them published. Plenty of those, to be sure, but this shouldn't be a requirement for a language to be described, IMO. Oh, and it's apparently not, the second try (after PureScript, which is absent from wiki) brought me to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_%28programming_language%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_%28programming_language%29 which cites oh so many serious papers. I could probably easily find tens of articles like this on wiki - either delete them right now or stop the double standards treatment of any one particular language. Like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picolisp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picolisp - and I really could go on (EDIT: there is a paper on Picolisp, but it's in the external links section which made me miss it).

_delirium 12y ago
The third-party sources don't specifically need to come from academia or be research articles. Third-party sources can perfectly well be (and often are) practice-oriented and come from industry: books from trade presses, articles in tech magazines, etc. Tons of languages on Wikipedia with well-sourced articles aren't from academia: CoffeeScript, Go, Clojure, TypeScript, Dart, Arc, D, Erlang, Swift, Scala, etc.
- dom96 12y ago
  Can you explain what sources make the D programming language article notable?
- klibertp 12y ago
  Wait, wait. Look at Arc article. It cites no printed ("textbooks, survey articles, etc") materials at all. All the references in the article are either essays by the author, blog posts or github repos. Which makes it pretty much in the same situation as Nimrod. How come Arc has its page, and Nimrod doesn't? Other than that, all the languages you mentioned are either old (5+ years) or have corporate backing, or both - and it should be obvious that we're not talking about langs like these. Aside from Arc you failed to mention even one language comparable to Nimrod in terms of existing sources. Meanwhile, look at newLisp article and its references. Why does it exist? It has four referenced sources, where one is "unreliable", one is an article comparable to the one in Dr.Dobbs on Nimrod and two remaining ones are posts by the author. Look at Felix article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_%28programming_language%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_%28programming_language%2...). It has no source whatsoever, yet it still exists. Same with Alice ML (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_%28programming_language%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_%28programming_language%2...) - which is probably just laziness of editors, because Alice papers were published IIRC. Yet they are not referenced at all, and the article still exists. There is reference to one printed source in Io language article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_%28programming_language%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_%28programming_language%29), so maybe it should be allowed to live. However, "Seven Languages in Seven Weeks" is not a very detailed description of any one language it covers (of course) and I could argue it's not enough to rely on it as an only source. Lisp flavored Erlang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFE_%28programming_language%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFE_%28programming_language%29) is apparently well sourced, as the article for it exists. Not even one of the sources was ever published in print. Same with Hy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy) - all sources are blog posts and similar. Look, I could really go on. Studying obscure languages nobody heard about is my hobby and I have lots and lots of examples, but I'd hope the above is enough to show you a "double standard" displayed here by Wikipedia editors. Either remove all of those - and no, I'm not going to help you with this - or stop bullying some languages without any reason at all.

_delirium 12y ago

The third-party sources don't specifically need to come from academia or be research articles. Third-party sources can perfectly well be (and often are) practice-oriented and come from industry: books from trade presses, articles in tech magazines, etc. Tons of languages on Wikipedia with well-sourced articles aren't from academia: CoffeeScript, Go, Clojure, TypeScript, Dart, Arc, D, Erlang, Swift, Scala, etc.

dom96 12y ago
Can you explain what sources make the D programming language article notable?
klibertp 12y ago
Wait, wait. Look at Arc article. It cites no printed ("textbooks, survey articles, etc") materials at all. All the references in the article are either essays by the author, blog posts or github repos. Which makes it pretty much in the same situation as Nimrod. How come Arc has its page, and Nimrod doesn't? Other than that, all the languages you mentioned are either old (5+ years) or have corporate backing, or both - and it should be obvious that we're not talking about langs like these. Aside from Arc you failed to mention even one language comparable to Nimrod in terms of existing sources. Meanwhile, look at newLisp article and its references. Why does it exist? It has four referenced sources, where one is "unreliable", one is an article comparable to the one in Dr.Dobbs on Nimrod and two remaining ones are posts by the author. Look at Felix article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_%28programming_language%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_%28programming_language%2...). It has no source whatsoever, yet it still exists. Same with Alice ML (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_%28programming_language%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_%28programming_language%2...) - which is probably just laziness of editors, because Alice papers were published IIRC. Yet they are not referenced at all, and the article still exists. There is reference to one printed source in Io language article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_%28programming_language%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_%28programming_language%29), so maybe it should be allowed to live. However, "Seven Languages in Seven Weeks" is not a very detailed description of any one language it covers (of course) and I could argue it's not enough to rely on it as an only source. Lisp flavored Erlang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFE_%28programming_language%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFE_%28programming_language%29) is apparently well sourced, as the article for it exists. Not even one of the sources was ever published in print. Same with Hy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy) - all sources are blog posts and similar. Look, I could really go on. Studying obscure languages nobody heard about is my hobby and I have lots and lots of examples, but I'd hope the above is enough to show you a "double standard" displayed here by Wikipedia editors. Either remove all of those - and no, I'm not going to help you with this - or stop bullying some languages without any reason at all.