I have no energy to deal with people like Czarkoff on Wikipedia, who clearly have no idea what they are talking about. They should clearly think over their guideline keepers, if declining a perfectly notable programming language like Nimrod for Wikipedia makes more sense then keeping it.
From a fellow language designer: Nimrod is very notable, combining previously unthought language features like efficient compilation and macros (only Elixir can compete here) and a real-time GC, with a python-like syntax with types.
The question isn't whether Nimrod is good or interesting, but whether it's covered in third-party literature that can be cited. If you flesh out this comment into an article giving an overview of Nimrod and its notable features, and publish the article in either a trade magazine or an academic conference/journal, then that would certainly be helpful.
That mostly just follows from Wikipedia's ambition to be a tertiary source. Unlike a collaborative knowledge-production wiki such as c2.com, where editors are supposed to develop their own judgments and original analyses of topics, Wikipedia is just supposed to summarize the secondary literature, with citations. So the presence of decent secondary literature to summarize is the main prerequisite for an article. I don't think that's the only good way to run a wiki, which is why Wikipedia is not the only wiki I contribute to. If someone starts a wiki to be a comprehensive programming-language history & reference, I'd contribute. But I think having a tertiary-source wiki that only cites information to solid secondary sources is one useful kind of wiki to have.
It's interesting that outside of HN (and maybe Reddit), Wikipedia mainly gets the exact opposite kind of criticism: lots of people complain that it's far too loose in its citation standards.
Comments
I have no energy to deal with people like Czarkoff on Wikipedia, who clearly have no idea what they are talking about. They should clearly think over their guideline keepers, if declining a perfectly notable programming language like Nimrod for Wikipedia makes more sense then keeping it.
From a fellow language designer: Nimrod is very notable, combining previously unthought language features like efficient compilation and macros (only Elixir can compete here) and a real-time GC, with a python-like syntax with types.
But not only that. It is also practical.
The question isn't whether Nimrod is good or interesting, but whether it's covered in third-party literature that can be cited. If you flesh out this comment into an article giving an overview of Nimrod and its notable features, and publish the article in either a trade magazine or an academic conference/journal, then that would certainly be helpful.
That mostly just follows from Wikipedia's ambition to be a tertiary source. Unlike a collaborative knowledge-production wiki such as c2.com, where editors are supposed to develop their own judgments and original analyses of topics, Wikipedia is just supposed to summarize the secondary literature, with citations. So the presence of decent secondary literature to summarize is the main prerequisite for an article. I don't think that's the only good way to run a wiki, which is why Wikipedia is not the only wiki I contribute to. If someone starts a wiki to be a comprehensive programming-language history & reference, I'd contribute. But I think having a tertiary-source wiki that only cites information to solid secondary sources is one useful kind of wiki to have.
It's interesting that outside of HN (and maybe Reddit), Wikipedia mainly gets the exact opposite kind of criticism: lots of people complain that it's far too loose in its citation standards.
There have been numerous articles published about Nimrod.
Its very obvious that this has become a case of Wikipedia editors ganging up.
Some of the articles that reference Nimrod are on Wikipedia.