alt Hacker Newshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck
Apparently that one is "notable" but Odin is not.
"The rules" are on the hook to justify their existence by providing reasonable and desirable outcomes, they're not a purpose unto themselves.
If your rules are shown to be buggy, fix your rules.
Replies
Just to be clear Brainfuck was built popularized and has been part of the nerd programming zeitgeist for longer than JangaFX has been around as a company and before the internet culture was less noteworthy.
The fact that you are pointing that language out specifically is reason enough.
Rules should be treated as such, strict guidelines that exist because the easier options failed and they will punish or hurt the innocent but that's the price we pay for living in a rules based system.
I think they could surely be more forgiving to programming domain but then everyone will ask for similar benefits.
If your best sources for a project are that you and people you work with use it that isn't very conveniencing and the fact that supposedly you have a lot of fans on twitter shouldn't make it any different.
>Apparently [Brainfuck] is "notable" but Odin is not
Brainfuck has been extensively discussed in the following journal papers:
https://doi.org/10.1080%2F07350198.2020.1727096
https://doi.org/10.7559%2Fcitarj.v9i3.432
If you can find two journal papers which extensively discuss the Odin programming language, I assure you that it will survive any Wikipedia deletion discussion.
I’m saying this as someone who, 13 years ago, had a very stressful week when my tiny little open source project (MaraDNS) was on the Wikipedia deletion block.[1] I added references to the deletion discussion, and as a result, it survived the discussion without a single vote to delete it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
Brainfuck is probably the most famous esoteric programming language. It's mentioned (and used) in published papers e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10994-019-05821-2. Probably not a good comparison point.
I think a more comparable language would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
if people want there to be an article on Odin they can contribute to the current draft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Odin_(programming_langua...
Rules are only “good” or “bad” in the context of the alternatives. What’s the alternative?
Makes sense. The Brainfuck article has a bunch of citations to published journals and books, so it's notable -- people are talking about it in ways that Wikipedia recognizes. That's what "notability" means -- "are unrelated trustworthy people talking about it?"
This is the Odin article as it existed when it was deleted by that AfD: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Odin_(progr...
The references aren't good. I don't have any pre-existing opinion of Odin, since I had never heard of it before I saw this HN post, and those references don't convince me that it matters to anyone.
I'm fairly inclusionist, so I'd personally think it's worth keeping the article if they could point to Odin being used by any notable project, or by a bunch of small projects. But the only user it claims for the language is a company I'd never heard of that doesn't have a wikipedia article.