Content deleted Content added
move Notability 2 up after Notability |
Update ranges example syntax |
||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Software|importance=low}}
}}
== Notability ==
Is this language really notable? There isn't much information about it besides from their own site, a few blogs, and random content aggregators. [[Special:Contributions/64.191.188.252|64.191.188.252]] ([[User talk:64.191.188.252|talk]]) 18:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Line 28 ⟶ 27:
::Anyway, as I wrote above I am now convinced that Factor is notable. I won't revert if anybody removes the notability tag from the article again. — [[User:Tobias Bergemann|Tobias Bergemann]] ([[User talk:Tobias Bergemann|talk]]) 07:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
:: Factor creator Slava Pestov gave a talk at the Boston Lisp Conference: http://groups.google.com/group/plt-scheme/browse_thread/thread/ab773a06e6fd73cf?fwc=2 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.230.164.105|68.230.164.105]] ([[User talk:68.230.164.105|talk]]) 04:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--
== Notability 2 ==▼
The factorial! function example is out of date. The ranges syntax has been changed from [1,b] to [1..b]
It appears that the Factor article has been declared non-notable again. I don't understand why this is. There have not been more secondary sources on Factor, but there are now peer-reviewed academic publications on Factor in addition to the secondary mentions that have already existed. How has Factor become less notable in this time? <small>[[User:LittleDan|LittleDan]]</small><sup>[[User talk:LittleDan|talk]]</sup> 19:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)▼
Autosigned by SineBot-->
:As I wrote in {{diff|Factor_(programming_language)|406907219|prev|this edit summary}}, the Diggins source seems to be reliable and have substantial coverage, but it's barely used. Relies on primary sources elsewhere, and lots of unsourced material. Maybe after the referencing problems are fixed notability will be obvious. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)▼
I'm a bit mystified how the list of academic papers with six different authors at the bottom of this article does not establish notability. I actually come from a mathematics background, and as far as I can tell, people don't stick notability tags all over articles about maths subjects just because they don't know much about them yet. Mr Monsanto: you should not be surprised that Factor's web presence is mostly at factorcode.org. It includes a wiki, so maybe people consider adding info to that, rather to blogs. Moreover, you discount anything that appears in a blog post ending up on Planet Factor. Has it occurred to you that interesting articles about Factor get included in the planet's blogroll? So if an author writes articles about the language and then they subsequently get aggregated, that means that they "shouldn't count" as interest across the internet? Maybe you mistakenly believe that linking to something gives Planet Factor some sort of ownership of the material to which it links? [[User:Rswarbrick|Rswarbrick]] ([[User talk:Rswarbrick|talk]]) 01:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)▼
This post has a nice testimonial,▼
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=26979561▼
: --[[User:FGrose|FGrose]] ([[User talk:FGrose|talk]]) 01:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)▼
==Interpreted language?==
Quote: "Factor was originally only interpreted, but it can now also be compiled. The compiler is written entirely in Factor, and it does not output standalone executables but rather merely a faster image."
So in other words....the compiler optimizes the code, which is still in Factor? Or am I missing something here? [[User:Bjelleklang|Bjelleklang]] - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] <
:No, the compiler converts Factor into machine code (currently supporting PPC, x86, x86-64 and ARM), which is nevertheless stored in the image with non-compiled Factor code. Maybe the wording was unclear. <small>[[User:LittleDan|LittleDan]]</small><sup>[[User talk:LittleDan|talk]]</sup> 17:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Line 56 ⟶ 48:
To the best of my knowledge Ideone is the only online compiler available for the Factor programming language. Online compilers might be of programmers interest due to several reasons (mobile devices usage, forum integration, programmers testing, programmers forum discussions) it does not [http://www.google.pl/search?client=opera&rls=pl&q=factor+online+compiler&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 google well]. Ideone does not require registration. Some third party site statistics: [http://www.xmarks.com/site/www.ideone.com/ xmarks], [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ideone.com alexa], [[User:Kuszi|kuszi]] ([[User talk:Kuszi|talk]]) 13:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC).
▲== Notability 2 ==
I suggest that you just google "Factor programming language". In my opinion, those results are sufficient and it certainly does not need a separate Wikipedia page. Maybe add it to some programming language list and link to homepage? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.155.33.248|91.155.33.248]] ([[User talk:91.155.33.248|talk]]) 15:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
▲It appears that the Factor article has been declared non-notable again. I don't understand why this is. There have not been more secondary sources on Factor, but there are now peer-reviewed academic publications on Factor in addition to the secondary mentions that have already existed. How has Factor become less notable in this time? <small>[[User:LittleDan|LittleDan]]</small><sup>[[User talk:LittleDan|talk]]</sup> 19:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
▲:As I wrote in {{diff|Factor_(programming_language)|406907219|prev|this edit summary}}, the Diggins source seems to be reliable and have substantial coverage, but it's barely used. Relies on primary sources elsewhere, and lots of unsourced material. Maybe after the referencing problems are fixed notability will be obvious. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
::Edit: my previous entry was a bit harsh, but in a nutshell: the notability rules should be modernized. Factor is an well established and advanced programming language, one of the most modern ones today. It plays in the same league as Clojure and REBOL, other languages beamed back from the near future. Please read into the matter in a bit more detail before you judge. This discussion should have never started in the first place since it has absolutely no grounds.
▲:::I'm a bit mystified how the list of academic papers with six different authors at the bottom of this article does not establish notability. I actually come from a mathematics background, and as far as I can tell, people don't stick notability tags all over articles about maths subjects just because they don't know much about them yet. Mr Monsanto: you should not be surprised that Factor's web presence is mostly at factorcode.org. It includes a wiki, so maybe people consider adding info to that, rather to blogs. Moreover, you discount anything that appears in a blog post ending up on Planet Factor. Has it occurred to you that interesting articles about Factor get included in the planet's blogroll? So if an author writes articles about the language and then they subsequently get aggregated, that means that they "shouldn't count" as interest across the internet? Maybe you mistakenly believe that linking to something gives Planet Factor some sort of ownership of the material to which it links? [[User:Rswarbrick|Rswarbrick]] ([[User talk:Rswarbrick|talk]]) 01:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
▲::::This post has a nice testimonial,
▲:::::http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=26979561
▲:::: --[[User:FGrose|FGrose]] ([[User talk:FGrose|talk]]) 01:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
:Some useful reading here:
:*[[WP:GNG|General notability guideline]]
:*[[WP:NOR|No original research]] (particularly [[WP:PRIMARY|primary, secondary, and tertiary sources]])
:*[[WP:BLPPRIMARY|Primary sources and statements about living persons]]
:*[[WP:RS|Reliable sources]]
:Most of the sources are closely affiliated with the topic (primary). Only two of the references are not (secondary). Primary sources don't indicate notability. This makes sense, actually. A couple people can write all they want about their own ideas. If their own writing is published in academic journals, maybe it's great research, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia until ''other'' people write substantial amounts about it, ''and'' that material is also published in reliable sources. (This means blog posts are usually out, but if blog posts link to magazine articles, published theses, academic articles, of course the linked content can be used.) There are probably thousands of programming languages. I think this one probably meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. However, the article needs to:
:# Attribute its statements to reliable, secondary sources
:# Use reliable primary sources for straightforward, descriptive statements, without adding analysis or synthesis
:# Be especially careful in statements about living persons
:--[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 04:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
::The real reason Factor is "not notable" to Wikipedians is that Factor has nothing to do with pornographic Japanese cartoons. Add a "hentai/ecchi" angle to Factor and it will suddenly be very notable to the point of keyboards getting sticky. Alternatively you could instead make it about video games. There's more space wasted on Wikipedia for minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog games than there is actual useful information. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/59.175.36.236|59.175.36.236]] ([[User talk:59.175.36.236|talk]]) 05:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::So... aren't you the equivalent contributors for Factor? Find the sources which have written about it. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 16:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
::It would be nice if Wikipedia could be purely a collection of information not derived at all from sources by the people involved, but that's not always possible. If you look at the citations for the Python article, a large proportion of them are to the main Python website or written by Python developers, and almost all of them are written by Python users. Another article which lacks secondary sources is [[exec (operating system)]]; only three sources are cited, and all of these were written by developers or standardizers of Unix systems. There have been many blog posts written by Factor users who are not involved in the core development, and even a couple university classes taught which incorporated the Factor language. Code in Factor is present in Wikibooks and and Rosettacode, and it is listed as a solution language in Project Euler; syntax highlighting for Factor is provided by Github and many other things. Would providing proof of these help the page's notability? I think they are facts that would be rather boring to list in the article; the exec article does not go to great lengths to talk about how many university OS courses explain how to use it. Or are they insufficient because they haven't been printed on paper? <small>[[User:LittleDan|LittleDan]]</small><sup>[[User talk:LittleDan|talk]]</sup> 20:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
::Do you think this article adds too much synthesis, or does anything bad with statements about living persons? <small>[[User:LittleDan|LittleDan]]</small><sup>[[User talk:LittleDan|talk]]</sup> 20:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Re the living persons, I think the guidelines are there to prevent people advertising themselves (or close associates) or libelling others. The only references I notice here are those about Slava, which are factual and don't fall into either category. So I would be surprised if anyone thought there was a problem with them. [[User:Rswarbrick|Rswarbrick]] ([[User talk:Rswarbrick|talk]]) 10:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on [[Factor (programming language)]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=757151436 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613092327/http://mitarbeiter.hs-heilbronn.de:80/~herzberg/Publications/ICSOFT.2009.pdf to http://mitarbeiter.hs-heilbronn.de/~herzberg/Publications/ICSOFT.2009.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726044425/http://factorcode.org/littledan/abstract.pdf to http://factorcode.org/littledan/abstract.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
{{sourcecheck|needhelp=}}
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 02:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
| |||