Content deleted Content added
Line 15:
== Commonly used? ==
EEML is certainly widely discussed. from a reasonably diverse community, so I think this is easily sufficient for establishing the notability of the language. But all the sources appear to be academic papers. Is there any evidence of its actual use? --[[User:RichardVeryard|RichardVeryard]] ([[User talk:RichardVeryard|talk]]) 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Line 27 ⟶ 26:
::::I certainly don't claim the presence of a tool as a necessary criterion of notability. But it is an indicator. If you are going to devote effort to Wikipedia articles on modelling languages, I'd reckon it's worth spending more time on the ones that do have tools. --[[User:RichardVeryard|RichardVeryard]] ([[User talk:RichardVeryard|talk]]) 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I have already spend numerous edits on several articles on [[modeling language]]s here, but I am still not (yet) particularly interested in those modeling tools. My interest is in the different types of modeling languages, their developers, their use, and the whole history of the field. I guess because I also developed a new modeling language on my own. Here on Wikipedia I am interested in improving the presentation of existing modeling languages and their developers. I think modeling languages as any [[new product development]] have an initial phase in which tools are not developed yet... and mayeb it never came that far. They can still be notable. Anyway... if you have particular idea's, which modeling languages could use some more attention here, please let me know. I can take a look!? -- [[User:Mdd|Marcel Douwe Dekker]] ([[User talk:Mdd|talk]]) 20:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
| |||