Talk:Occam (programming language): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Line 118:
::OK. After a quick look (I really do not have time for a review of it right now). This is a modified version of the book I wrote. The floating point appendix looks the same as the one written for that book by David Shepherd. And it has Geoff Barret's name on it! I scanned this book before (years ago) and I noted this then but figured no one would ever care TBH. So I don't know what to tell you. I certainly cannot support adding something about it without some substantive clarification preferably from David May or Roger Shepherd since they can speak with some authority on the matter.
 
::However, without this clarification, if you have a reference to a journal published scientific paper that has referenced this specification and has used the unique features of this language (whatever they are, and the paper can be one written and published by Geoff) to specify an algorithm in that paper, then I say yes, put it in. The paper can be one written and published by Geoff, for example. Otherwise, I vote no.
 
:: If the article was a more extensive piece covering the history of the development and presenting the language more completely etc.. then I's say put it in as a footnote. But there is a very very long way to go before anyone does that. Again I say, if you are burning energy on this talk page, better to actually add something substantive to the page and stop bickering. And while you are all at it, please do this transparently. I am not happy with people hiding behind aliases. If you have something to say, let's see who you are!