Content deleted Content added
Jonovision (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
→Is Go! a 'little known' language?: new section |
||
Line 156:
::::::Then it would have said "our implementation is similar to..." in a Related Work section, not 'as proposed in...' in the architecture section. Honest question: do you really not see this? [[User:BarryNorton|BarryNorton]] ([[User talk:BarryNorton|talk]]) 11:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I don't read it that way. It simply states that the same solution was proposed by the two papers it refers to. It could mean they independently came to the same conclusion. The peer reviewer could have pointed out the previous work, and accepted the paper only on the condition that the authors added the reference. Neither of these is necessarily true, but we really don't know. --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] ([[User talk:Jonovision|talk]]) 03:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
== Is Go! a 'little known' language? ==
The article previously introduced Go! as a 'little known language' with a citation from an obscure to me blog or e-zine.
I do not know whether Go is little known or not. The provided source does not provide enough evidence to establish the fact.
In my opinion the fragment I removed is biased. If somebody wishes to quote this as a fact, please quote acceptable evidence
that go is a little known language and maybe improve the structure - it looks curious to me that the article should start in this way.
[[Special:Contributions/123.115.180.66|123.115.180.66]] ([[User talk:123.115.180.66|talk]]) 09:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Tea
| |||