Content deleted Content added
BarryNorton (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| (41 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Old AfD multi| date = 17 June 2013 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Go! (programming_language) (2nd_nomination) }}
{{
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C |1=
▲{{oldafdfull | date = Nov 12 2009 | result = Keep | page = Go! (programming language) }}
{{WikiProject Computing |importance=Low |science=yes |science-importance=Low |software=yes |software-importance=Low |free-software=yes |free-software-importance=Low}}
}}
== Book ==
There is a Go! text book available, written by Francis McCabe...
lulu.com/content/paperback-book/lets-go/641689
Line 138 ⟶ 140:
:I presume the "vandalism" you're talking about my clean-up of the article. It was in bad shape after the deletion debate, since a multitude of editors added every bit of information they could find in support of the article's notability. The same thing happened to the [[DBpedia]] article. Everyone rushes in to save it, but nobody wants to clean up the mess afterwards. For the record, I was not the one who nominated the article for deletion, and I haven't removed any references (not even the Erlang paper, which most people in the deletion debate agreed was pretty worthless). --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] ([[User talk:Jonovision|talk]]) 00:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
:: Yes, your "clean up". Indeed you haven't actually removed the Erlang reference - you'll wait for someone else to notice you've orphaned it. By "pretty worthless" you're twisting some statements that, in itself, it didn't establish notability. The fact, however, that the language has shown influence on a very widely used language (due to its use in telecoms) remains, and there is no constructive reason to remove a mention of this. On the association of a language that combines Semantic Web representations with tuple-spaced computing for coordination, and projects with are funded to develop the large-scale combination of Semantic Web representations with tuple-space computing for coordination, your justification (that you "don't understand the connection"), apart from being absurd, would surely justify putting a request for clarification here on the talk page, not deletion. Is this normal on Wikipedia, do you think? To delete properly cited edits you "don't understand". [[User:BarryNorton|BarryNorton]] ([[User talk:BarryNorton|talk]]) 07:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
:: "For the record, I was not the one who nominated the article for deletion" - no, indeed... you just first suggested it (see above, where the record is preserved). [[User:BarryNorton|BarryNorton]] ([[User talk:BarryNorton|talk]]) 07:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
:: "I haven't removed any references" - great... I'd kept the project deliverables (used since I was asked directly about the projects cited) as footnotes, rather than including references to the relevant papers. And you've therefore removed them. If I do the opposite and include the paper references on 'triples-based computing' (precisely the combination of semantics and tuple-based communication) does that mean that you'll leave them be? [[User:BarryNorton|BarryNorton]] ([[User talk:BarryNorton|talk]]) 07:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
:::The two inline references I removed (TripCom and SOA4All) make no mention of Go!, and I have absolutely no idea what relevance they have to the article. I'll stand by my decision to remove them, unless someone can explain why they belong in this article. They look spammy to me.
:::The Erlang reference only mentions Go! in a footnote -- the statement that Go! influenced Erlang (which was released earlier) is at best a synthesis (see [[WP:NOR]]), but I'd outright say it's of dubious veracity.
:::As you can see, I ''suggested'' the article should be deleted ''if no additional sources could be found to establish notability''. The normal Wikipedia process is to flag an article for deletion and let people comment on it first, but an overzealous editor didn't bother to wait, which is unfortunate, since it led to the poor tone of the deletion debate. I'm just trying to improve the article here, I'm not trying to set it up for some future deletion. Please [[WP:AGF|give me the benefit of the doubt]] and don't accuse me of such things. --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] ([[User talk:Jonovision|talk]]) 08:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
::::Actually, there are no requirements to discuss the deletion before nominating an article. In this case, the main person discussing with you was the author of the article, and I doubt he would have admitted it was worthy of deletion even if he thought so. That's why I've nominated it directly so that more people can be involved. An AfD is just that - we discuss the sources and notability, and decide if they fit within the criteria; there's no need to take it personally. The problem is that it went far too passionate because of the Google issue, and with weird assumptions of bad faith (as if there was some kind of Google conspiracy against the article), and that lead to a very poor debate. I still think the sources are very thin but I obviously won't nominate it again for deletion. [[User:WikiLaurent|Laurent]] ([[User talk:WikiLaurent|talk]]) 10:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::I see your point. I would have liked to discuss things more myself, especially the larger issue of how we should approach looking at the notability of academic subjects, and judging the reliability of various journals. I got the impression that most people got involved in the deletion debate just to vote either way, without really wanting to look at the broader issues involved. --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] ([[User talk:Jonovision|talk]]) 19:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
:::: "The two inline references I removed (TripCom and SOA4All) make no mention of Go!, and I have absolutely no idea what relevance they have" - again, why not ask on the talk page? You simply do not assume good faith. First I'm accused of being Frank, now you're accusing me of being a spammer. No? [[User:BarryNorton|BarryNorton]] ([[User talk:BarryNorton|talk]]) 21:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
:::: "The Erlang reference only mentions Go! in a footnote" - you mean mentions it thus ''by name'', I suppose? (I mean, when the alternative is that you're simply lying.) You have an occasional 'academic bias' but you're unaware that academics very often refer to one another simply by citation (and that citing an article about Go! in the body text of an introduction to a paper ''is'' citing Go!) [[User:BarryNorton|BarryNorton]] ([[User talk:BarryNorton|talk]]) 21:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
::::: I quote: "'''3 Agents’ Architecture''' As proposed in [3] and [4] agents are implemented as groups of communicating processes. [...] [4] K. L. Clark and F. G. McCabe. Go! for multi-threaded deliberative agents." [[User:BarryNorton|BarryNorton]] ([[User talk:BarryNorton|talk]]) 22:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::I didn't look at who added the TripCom and SOA4All references, but I don't see what they have to do with the Go! language. To me, they do look similar to the spam links that are added to other articles every day. If you are the one who added them, then yes, I'd like to know why they are relevant. I am not personally accusing anyone of being a spammer.
:::::Secondly, I don't read that quote as saying that Go!'s "style of expression has influenced the modeling of agent systems in Erlang". It simply seems to be acknowledging previous work that uses the same implementation. --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] ([[User talk:Jonovision|talk]]) 01:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
::::::Then it would have said "our implementation is similar to..." in a Related Work section, not 'as proposed in...' in the architecture section. Honest question: do you really not see this? [[User:BarryNorton|BarryNorton]] ([[User talk:BarryNorton|talk]]) 11:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I don't read it that way. It simply states that the same solution was proposed by the two papers it refers to. It could mean they independently came to the same conclusion. The peer reviewer could have pointed out the previous work, and accepted the paper only on the condition that the authors added the reference. Neither of these is necessarily true, but we really don't know. --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] ([[User talk:Jonovision|talk]]) 03:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
== Is Go! a 'little known' language? ==
The article previously introduced Go! as a 'little known language' with a citation from an obscure to me blog or e-zine.
I do not know whether Go is little known or not. The provided source does not provide enough evidence to establish the fact.
In my opinion the fragment I removed is biased. If somebody wishes to quote this as a fact, please quote acceptable evidence
that go is a little known language and maybe improve the structure - it looks curious to me that the article should start in this way.
[[Special:Contributions/123.115.180.66|123.115.180.66]] ([[User talk:123.115.180.66|talk]]) 09:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Tea
:I think the original editor wanted to assert that Go! was unknown before the Go naming controversy (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go!_(programming_language)&diff=326893055&oldid=326511104]), which is quite true. However the edit has been changed so many times since then that it only remains some rather odd statement about Go! being "little known". If there are no objections I'd suggest restoring the original edit, as I think it's notable fact about the language. [[User:WikiLaurent|Laurent]] ([[User talk:WikiLaurent|talk]]) 11:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
:If Go was a little known language prior to the naming dispute, then it may be fine to quote the fact as long as sufficient citations are provided - maybe a satisfying way to do this would then be to open a 'naming dispute section' and indicate, in that section, that Go! was little known prior to the naming dispute. However please consider - at the moment I believe that both Go and Go! are receiving a transient, inordinate amount of exposure. Would it then be a valuable contribution to encyclopedic knowledge to open the Go article with a similar mention that Go is a little known (or even, unknown, language? It appears to me that Go! is a special purpose language that is reasonably known by related specialists. Besides, I have no remembrance of reading any other Wikipedia article about a programming language that included a statement about whether that language is little or well known. I would finally suggest that Go! be treated in no special way and the mention not be restored.
[[Special:Contributions/114.243.188.106|114.243.188.106]] ([[User talk:114.243.188.106|talk]]) 15:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Tea
::Yes, I definitely believe that articles about computer languages should have information about how and by whom they are used. For example, see the [[C (programming language)]] introduction. As you suggested, I checked out the Google Go article, and there's no mention of the project's status, so I've added a sentence about that to the intro. --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] ([[User talk:Jonovision|talk]]) 16:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
:I've reverted the change and put that text back in. I don't see any reason to question the motives or accuracy of the cited author, especially since his article is generally favourable towards the language. Anyways, even if it were biased, Wikipedia's policy doesn't say that articles can't express a point of view, just that opposing points of view should also be included. --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] ([[User talk:Jonovision|talk]]) 12:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
:'''Now''' the language is much more known than before, and I thank Google for that. Google's language seems to be the most unnecessary one since the emergence of Java reintroducing a lot of PL lacks, but I really need to evaluate agent languages. If Google didn't decide to make a troll (by violating the bourgeoisi principle and thereby the capitalist system) I would never have known about Go!. ... said: [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] ([[User talk:Rursus|'''<span style="color: #CC0044; background: #CCFF88"><sup>m</sup><u>bork³</u></span>''']]) 14:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
::I forgot to say: "thanks Google!" The corps will make a heroic figure ("villain" hero for one of the conflict sides) in its mortal combat where it will demise in the battle of all proprietary forces it has challenged. It will be a beautiful spectacle for all neutral onlookers (like me), who will compose poems and songs of the grand battle. May their souls be blessed in eternity, ... '''sob'''... (I'm becoming a little emotional here) ... and eternal bliss be in the afterlife... ... said: [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] ([[User talk:Rursus|'''<span style="color: #CC0044; background: #CCFF88"><sup>m</sup><u>bork³</u></span>''']]) 14:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
== Does anyone use this language? ==
Certainly the level of detail in the article is far in excess of that for substantially more developed and utilized languages.
If this language merits any discussion of its details at all, then we should at least provide a link to the page of the active Go! developers community, where people can go to find out more.
If none exists, we should greatly attenuate the page: tell people what it was, that it was known primarily for a naming controversy, and that its download page is no longer active. That's a single paragraph. [[Special:Contributions/2620:0:1003:1005:D267:E5FF:FEEC:D1C0|2620:0:1003:1005:D267:E5FF:FEEC:D1C0]] ([[User talk:2620:0:1003:1005:D267:E5FF:FEEC:D1C0|talk]]) 22:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
:The language should just be briefly mentioned on the Go page and nothing more. 100% of the article sources are either primary sources or related to the naming controversy. There is no Go! developer community, this is pretty much a dead language with zero notability. [[User:WikiLaurent|Laurent]] ([[User talk:WikiLaurent|talk]]) 16:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
== source tag edit-war ==
[[user:Yobot]], [[user:Bgwhite]] and now also [[user:Magioladitis]] are repeatedly adding <nowiki><source></nowiki>. Could you please explain why you are doing this? Doing so breaks the formatting of this article. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 00:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
: {{U|John Vandenberg}} I've stated why. Again, you keep treating people as idiots. You call me names and want to block me. How many times do I have to say to not to contact me. GET THE HELL AWAY FROM ME!!!! WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT!!!! Go bully somebody else to make you feel important. [[User:Bgwhite|Bgwhite]] ([[User talk:Bgwhite|talk]]) 01:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:: Sigh. Where have I called you names or threatened to block you? I am guessing that you are referring to [[User_talk:Bgwhite#Go!]], where you did not answer this question, at least not correctly. A lang=foo is needed, and afaik this language has never been supported by the source highlighter. Since the switch to pygments, it is now an error condition to not specify a language. I am still struggling to understand why so many administrators are participating in an edit war, and each time an administrator edits this page they make it render incorrectly. I see [[user:Hydriz]]'s edits also had the same effect, by using <nowiki><pre></nowiki>. I must be missing something that is bringing so many people to 'fix' this obscure article. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 01:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that things this is source code with comments. I have not noticed this before. Using code as plain text has the effect that some things like <code>{}}</code> catch attention as broken template or something. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 05:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:You have not noticed the leading space syntax before? What tool is detecting this page as having a broken template? <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 05:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
* (time goes by)... I've marked it up as syntax. The footnotes are adequately addressed outside of the code block. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Widefox|Widefox]]</span>; [[User talk:Widefox|talk]]</span> 01:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
== Removing sentence about not supporting inheritance ==
In the Design section, there's a sentence "As a deliberate design choice to reduce complexity, Go! does not support inheritance." which lacks a citation. I think it may have been mistakenly added to this page as a result of confusing it for that of [[Go (programming language)]], as it is a true statement about that language (and omitted the ! [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go!_(programming_language)&diff=423342228&oldid=423341343 when it was originally added|]). "Ontology Oriented Programming in Go!" from the references/further reading seems to suggest that Go! does in fact support inheritance, saying things such as "Sub-class relationships are reflected using both type and theory inheritance rules.", "We may define a new class as a modification/extension of an existing class using inheritance.", and "In both Go! and Owl a class may inherit from more than one superclass." I've tentatively removed that sentence from the article. --[[User:Surinna|Surinna]] ([[User talk:Surinna|talk]]) 03:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on [[Go! (programming language)]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=759842700 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/20091115151833/http://www.informatica.si:80/vol30.htm to http://www.informatica.si/vol30.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|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> 12:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
== Gender is not binary! ==
Gender variable should be called "sex" if it's trying to determine XX XY birth chromosome sort of stuff. Maybe then Gender can be a string [[User:Edjez|Edjez]] ([[User talk:Edjez|talk]]) 22:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
| |||