Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Notability |
||
Line 1:
== 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 8 ⟶ 9:
:If everything is irrelevant, then you are just trolling Wikipedia. And for the people who take you serious: One evidence is "Factor includes a large standard library". As can be seen here: http://docs.factorcode.org/content/article-vocab-index.html --[[User:Stesch|Stesch]] ([[User talk:Stesch|talk]]) 08:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
::I have restored the notability tag. After some more googling I still have not found much of what I would call [[WP:RS|reliable, secondary sources]] about Factor. Besides the [http://www.factorcode.org/ Factor homepage] there is the [http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.factor.general Factor mailing list], there is the [http://planet.factorcode.org/ planet-factor Atom/RSS aggregator], there is a mostly empty [http://www.reddit.com/r/factor subreddit], there is some content at the [http://concatenative.org/wiki/revisions/Factor concatenative wiki]. Factor gets mentioned quite a bit at the [http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/search?q=factor programming subreddit]. Factor seems to get mentioned [http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.450554.4 here] [http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_frm/thread/36be51e4aba5bb1b and] [http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_frm/thread/af6cadb396aeab8b there], and the standard library does look impressive. I am now borderline convinced of the notability of the language. However, I still would like to see some secondary sources added to the article, if only to avoid having this discussion again. —[[User:Tobias Bergemann|Tobias Bergemann]] ([[User talk:Tobias Bergemann|talk]]) 11:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
==Interpreted language?==
| |||