Content deleted Content added
→Notability: I won't revert if anybody removes the notability tag from the article again. |
|||
Line 17:
:Factor has influenced at least two other programming languages, Cat and Concat. Cat has an article whose notability is not questioned, even though it has had much less code written in it and has a much less developed implementation. Concat was described in a paper published in July at an international computer science conference. Both of these are now cited in the article. It seems that these should imply notability. <small>[[User:LittleDan|LittleDan]]</small><sup>[[User talk:LittleDan|talk]]</sup> 16:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
::Re: "''Cat has an article whose notability is not questioned''". Well, the notability of Cat ''could'' be questioned as [[Cat (programming language)|the article]] has very much the same problem as this article as there are no references to secondary sources that would help establish notability.
::Don't get me wrong: the technology behind Factor and its VM are impressive technological achievements. Still, I found it hard to find articles on Factor that were not written by either [[Slava Pestov]], [http://phildawes.net/blog/ Phil Dawes], or [http://useless-factor.blogspot.com/ Daniel Ehrenberg], who in my eyes are too close to Factor to be considered secondary sources.
::Anyway, as I wrote above I am now convinced that Factor is notable. I won't revert if anybody removes the notability tag from the article again. — [[User:Tobias Bergemann|Tobias Bergemann]] ([[User talk:Tobias Bergemann|talk]]) 07:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
==Interpreted language?==
| |||