Talk:Lisp (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:25, 24 June 2025

Latest revision as of 13:38, 5 August 2025

(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Computing|importance=midMid|software=yes|software-importance=High|science=yes|science-importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Computer science|importance=High}}

}}

{{archives}}

Line 577 ⟶ 576:

I did not mention the omnipresence of the drawing in Lisp literature for brevity.

Hmm, perhaps i should add some program text layouted as cons cells, too, in the body of the article. Here is one:

[[File:S-Expression drawing example representing '(defun square (x) (* x x))'.svg|framed|center|Example representing the definition '(defun square (x) (* x x))'.]]

-- [[User:Cobalt pen|Cobalt pen]] ([[User talk:Cobalt pen|talk]]) 15:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Reply to|Quale}} I see, that you've reverted the edit. Since i tried to discuss and clear this here, i must say I'm not amused. Please have a look at [[Cobol]], which i find a sensible use, and my comment in the 'logo' field in the [[Template:Infobox programming language#Parameters]] section. Reverting is soo simple, doing it right, not. Please be so kind to revert yourself and join the discussion again, here. -- [[User:Cobalt pen|Cobalt pen]] ([[User talk:Cobalt pen|talk]]) 11:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hey, I've discussed it here too. I think I'm not the only person who has pointed out that this article is about a family of languages, not a single language, and that the Lisp language family does not have a logo. If you claim it does, then that needs a [[WP:RS]]. Willingness to discuss doesn't mean you automatically get your way and it would help if you could make a stronger argument with some actual evidence that your artwork is a Lisp logo. You've had weeks to provide that evidence, but I don't see it. I'm somewhat more familiar with Lisp than Cobol (I haven't written 40+ years of Cobol programs, or actually any Cobol at all), so I'll leave most concerns with the Cobol article to others. [[User:Quale|Quale]] ([[User talk:Quale|talk]]) 12:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::* Your point is "no logo". I'm with you in that.

::* I asked you to look at the [[Cobol]] page, which you apparently did not do. Instead of a logo, they put in a picture of a report. So my point is not so much WP:RS, but rather the use of the template in question.

::* In this respect, your statement "the Lisp family of languages doesn't have a logo", falls short.

::* My question is rather: Do we want the template to be used to graphically enhance the top of the article and interpret the logo field this way, yes or no.

::I'm not here to claim a non-existing logo. To the contrary. Please see my attempt to clarify the field's use in the template's definition. If we want to stay with your interpretation, i.e. a logo is a logo is a logo, then the [[Cobol]] use of the template would be wrong.

::Hope it makes my intention clearer. {{Reply to|Quale}} Please understand, that you reverted the "logo" in Lisp, but not the related note in the template. Can we come to some conclusion here? Please don't duck away saying it is another article's problem. How to cope with the template? -- [[User:Cobalt pen|Cobalt pen]] ([[User talk:Cobalt pen|talk]]) 04:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)