Content deleted Content added
TucanHolmes (talk | contribs) Undid revision 1203647956 by 83.10.200.88 (talk) | WP:FORUM |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 6:
{{old AfD multi
|date1 = July 25 2011 |result1 = '''redirect to [[JetBrains]]''' |page1 = Kotlin (programming language)
}}
{{tmbox
|image = [[Image:Ambox warning orange.svg|{{#ifeq:|yes|30px|50px}}]]
|text = {{strong|A warning about certain sources}}: Blog articles and tutorials often copy text from Wikipedia to introduce the programming language they're writing about. While the claims they repeat are generally not contentious, these sources should nevertheless be avoided to reduce the [[citogenesis]] or [[WP:CIRCULAR|circular reporting]] risk to Wikipedia. Watch for similar wordings, maybe interspersed with text copied from different sources, and avoid these sources to prevent a [[Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents|citogenesis incident]].
}}
Line 137 ⟶ 141:
The new redesigned mascot was announced this year.
https://blog.jetbrains.com/kotlin/2023/04/the-kotlin-mascot-returns/ [[Special:Contributions/109.245.202.213|109.245.202.213]] ([[User talk:109.245.202.213|talk]]) 12:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
== I'm missing a pro/cons section ==
I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, so I don't know what the right terminology would be: Reception? Review? Benefits and Drawbacks? [[User:Snorkop|Snorkop]] ([[User talk:Snorkop|talk]]) 08:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
:We can't do a pro/con-section on our own, that would be [[WP:OR|original research]]. We need reliable sources, at least several of them, to create something like that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tech review blog, and unless there are specific and notable criticisms of Kotlin, no such section will be necessary.
:We do have comparison pages, e.g. [[Comparison of C and Pascal]], [[Comparison of C Sharp and Java|Comparison of C# and Java]] or [[Compatibility of C and C++]], but these are plagued with issues, mainly those that I have mentioned above, and we need enough material (a large enough body of reliable sources) to create them. They need to be useful to the reader, and they need to exist for a reason, i.e. the topic, the underlying comparison, needs to be notable enough to warrant its own article. [[User:TucanHolmes|<span style="background-color: #eff6ff; color: #0645ad; padding: 2px 3px;">TucanHolmes</span>]] ([[User talk:TucanHolmes|talk]]) 14:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
== On data classes ==
{{ping|MrOllie}} I disagree with the {{Diff2|1218897978|recent removal}} of some information about data classes from the article. Data classes are a core part of Kotlin's feature set, and have been inspired other languages, including Java with its records – so, definitely very notable. While I agree that Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTHOW|not an instruction manual]], I don't think that this justifies a near-complete removal, even with a low-quality source. In my opinion, a better course of action would have been to condense the explanation and tag the source as "[better source needed]" (copy editing, basically). [[User:TucanHolmes|<span style="background-color: #eff6ff; color: #0645ad; padding: 2px 3px;">TucanHolmes</span>]] ([[User talk:TucanHolmes|talk]]) 16:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
== Adoption sections ==
Seems like the last section in adoption should mention Android? Most of the sources are about Android. We could also remove these lists and just summarize (companies like X Y Z use it and have noted that ...) [[User:Heartleafphilodendron|heartleafphilodendron]] ([[User talk:Heartleafphilodendron|talk]]) 20:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
| |||