Talk:Lisp (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:57, 12 June 2025

Latest revision as of 13:38, 5 August 2025

(13 intermediate revisions by 3 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 565 ⟶ 564:

::Additionally, and contrary to the cell in the LMI logo, the dots of the start of the references in the components were typically drawn very small, if at all. So i did my best to replicate a "high quality" drawing, but typical cell image.

::-- [[User:Cobalt pen|Cobalt pen]] ([[User talk:Cobalt pen|talk]]) 22:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hmm, add an addition, truth sometimes unfolds itself slowly. Perhaps, we really deal with a problem in the design or use of the {{tlx|Infobox programming language}}. Not every language has a 'logo'. Such as Fortran, C, Cobol, for instance., Soor having a 'logo' hereLisp, certainly has created the issue of selecting a logo where there reallyin isour nonecase. Perhaps, this is actually more something to be dealt with in [[Template:Infobox programming language]]? -- [[User:Cobalt pen|Cobalt pen]] ([[User talk:Cobalt pen|talk]]) 22:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

My recommendation is that we put both, or more logos if there are any, with a note that there is no official logo, but several logos have come to represent Lisp. The unofficial logos all seem to 'represent' the language to a significant userbase. Doing a quick google search, the most common logo actually seems to be [https://www.redbubble.com/i/sticker/LISP-logo-by-hasselbackt/38219558.EJUG5 here]. [[User:Epachamo|Epachamo]] ([[User talk:Epachamo|talk]]) 04:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Or, maybe don't. The Lisp described in this article is not a single language but rather a family of languages. Why does the article need a logo? Lisp is a family of computer programming languages, not a pop music act. [[User:Quale|Quale]] ([[User talk:Quale|talk]]) 06:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Same here, Epachamo. My first thought seeing the current logo was "what?!". Same with the "logo" you come up with as "most common". I'm doing Lisp since about 1980. At least stating, that there is no logo for Lisp, really, is the most upright and factually correct, imo. While the one you come up with is at least intended to be a Lisp logo, the current Yin-Yang certainly isn't. So either leaving the logo out or, perhaps better, putting in some text like: "Lisp does not have a logo." would prevent the box to become "graphically enhanced", again. Or do we want this feature, to make the article look nicer, or so? The "logo" actually comes from the Wiki-template field, not from the language, i think right now. So adding a note to the template, stating "please don't make up a logo" might be helpful for other articles. See e.g. [[Cobol]] for another sensible, graphically enhances solution. -- [[User:Cobalt pen|Cobalt pen]] ([[User talk:Cobalt pen|talk]]) 13:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems, the discussion came to an end. I lean towards the "graphical enhanced" interpretation and put the cons cell now in the infobox together with a text, that:

* makes clear, we are not showing a logo.

* emphasizes the fundamental role of the cell, especially with regard to the reflexive nature.

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

-- [[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)