Talk:Factor (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:42, 14 February 2011

Revision as of 03:26, 15 February 2011

Line 54:

:As I wrote in {{diff|Factor_(programming_language)|406907219|prev|this edit summary}}, the Diggins source seems to be reliable and have substantial coverage, but it's barely used. Relies on primary sources elsewhere, and lots of unsourced material. Maybe after the referencing problems are fixed notability will be obvious. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

::Edit: my previous entry was a bit harsh, but in a nutshell: the notability rules should be modernized. Factor is an well established and advanced programming language, one of the most modern ones today. It plays in the same league as Clojure and REBOL, other languages beamed back from the near future. Please read into the matter in a bit more detail before you judge. This discussion should have never started in the first place since it has absolutely no grounds.

::Re: Re: Tobias, unfortunately you are not notable to most of us Wikipedia readers, probably your entries should be deleted from here. On the other hand and to change the tone, Factor is one of the most advanced programming languages today, along with Clojure and REBOL. Since I already know and like the language and do not want to find it on the web again, just delete away the entry! How the bloody hell can there be a guideline which says that a scientific or engineering feat as advanced as Factor should be simply omitted? And Jimmy Wales wanted my money for that the other day with those handsome portraits. My buttocks. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.131.191.32|82.131.191.32]] ([[User talk:82.131.191.32|talk]]) 00:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::I'm a bit mystified how the list of academic papers with six different authors at the bottom of this article does not establish notability. I actually come from a mathematics background, and as far as I can tell, people don't stick notability tags all over articles about maths subjects just because they don't know much about them yet. Mr Monsanto: you should not be surprised that Factor's web presence is mostly at factorcode.org. It includes a wiki, so maybe people consider adding info to that, rather to blogs. Moreover, you discount anything that appears in a blog post ending up on Planet Factor. Has it occurred to you that interesting articles about Factor get included in the planet's blogroll? So if an author writes articles about the language and then they subsequently get aggregated, that means that they "shouldn't count" as interest across the internet? Maybe you mistakenly believe that linking to something gives Planet Factor some sort of ownership of the material to which it links? [[User:Rswarbrick|Rswarbrick]] ([[User talk:Rswarbrick|talk]]) 01:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)