Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:20, 26 March 2015

Revision as of 17:23, 26 March 2015

Line 19:

:::I don't believe that qualifies as a [[WP:SECONDARY]] source. {{tq|A '''[[secondary source]]''' provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.}} It doesn't look to me like the author was doing any more than just copy-editing the primary source for space, the same way a news organization might copy edit a press release, also without adding their own interpretation or analysis. I don't see anything here that represents his own ideas. I certainly don't get the impression the author downloaded the compiler and tried it out as he would have to for an actual review. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 16:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

:::: I would argue that simply choosing to ''include'' Nim in this article, a stated list of languages "on the rise", is a representation of the author's own ideas: The idea that Nim is on the rise and (as the author suggests on the first slide) "could have meaningful impact on modern programming as it evolves". (The languages in the article are ordered alphabetically, so we can't read anything into Nim's position on slide 9.) I would argue that the facts the author chose to include in the terse description of Nim (such as not needing a VM or runtime) represent the author's interpretation of what is worthy about the language. For example, noting that Nim compiles down to C and thus doesn't need a VM or runtime, seems to me to be a comment on Nim's stated goal "without compromises on runtime efficiency". For about half the languages the author presents (eg, Ceylon, Clojure, Groovy, Hack), the language is described primarily in contrast to another more-widely-known language (often Java). This is also the case for the Nim description of Nim (again, contrasting it with Java's need for the JVM). I agree that the article is not particularly well-written; but I still assert that the article (poorly-written as it is) '''does qualify''' as a [[WP:SECONDARY]] source. Finally, I disagree with the suggestion that it is necessary to download a compiler and try it out, before one can write a review about a language: One can review a language's syntax, stdlib API, or even design goals, for example. It's not necessary for the author to review the operation of the Nim compiler specifically, for the article to be a valid [[WP:SECONDARY]] source about the Nim language. — [[User:Jboyme|jboyme]] ([[User talk:Jboyme#top|talk]]) 17:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Northamerica1000|N<font size="-2">ORTH</font> A<font size="-2">MERICA</font>]]^{<font size="-2">[[User_talk:Northamerica1000|1000]]</font>} 10:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)</small>