Talk:Newspeak (programming language)
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Newspeak (programming language) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notability
[edit]As the designer of Newspeak, I feel it would be inappropriate for me to edit the article directly. On the other hand, I did want to respond to the notability concerns that have been raised by the editors. Newspeak is a new language, and it will take some time for its impact to be felt. However, there is already one journal paper related to Newspeak (Executable Grammars in Newspeak), and I there are a number of third party citations of it, e.g., in OOPSLA 2009, the paper: "PI: A Pattern Language" by Knoll and Mezini. A quick search in Google scholar will turn up several citations of this paper and of other Newspeak related documents.
Newspeak has been featured in academic forums such as the 2008 ECOOP summer school, a tutorial at DISI in Genoa, the 2007 Dyla workshop, colloquia at HPI Potsdam as well as non-academic technical forums. You can easily verify this information on the net. I hope this can help alleviate the editor's concerns.
Gbracha (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I've reviewed Wikipedia's guidelines, and found that they actually allow me to edit this page, provided I am very careful not be biased. I think I can do so, and I'm sure someone will correct things if I'm wrong Gbracha (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Now I've gone and done something that might be controversial; I've removed the notability warning. I've added a reference to a refereed academic paper, which is a secondary source as far as I understand the guidelines. As the prior discussion sections note, there is another paper and there are citations in other work from independent academic sources. No one has challenged them (nor should they), and enough time has elapsed to give anyone an opportunity to do so. Gbracha (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- When you say you think you can avoid bias, is that doublethink? 2601:C2:201:4612:D76:DD7F:9AC0:A521 (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello World
[edit]It could be very valuable to have a "Hello world" or similar example on here, as most other programming language pages have. - --Avapoet (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Identity
[edit]Although the Identity section gives examples of how the Newspeak community identifies with George Orwell's work in a similar fashion to the Python community identifying with Monty Python's work, it omits the reason why the name was chosen in the first place. I suspect the real origin of this choice was Donald Knuth's 1974 article "Structured Programming with go to Statements" (DOI: 10.1145/356635.356640, page 264) where he, tongue-in-cheek, talks of a "really good" programming language which would be developed 10 years later called UTOPIA 84 or NEWSPEAK.
Since this is the epitome of original research, it cannot be added to the article, but I anyway felt it was worthwhile talking about it here on the talk page. Maybe one day someone who reads this will ask Gilad Bracha about it in an interview, and we will get a real reference. TheGoblin (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)