Talk:Nim (programming language)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because I've been writing Nimrod code for five years, I've seen this article deleted two or three times (for reason of not having enough references) while pages for languages with no references persist, unthreatened: ooc, WLanguage, Nemo_(programming_language). Now if references define notability, surely those pages should be deleted and Nim should be left alone. --99.117.5.224 (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact that other pages hadn't been noticed for deletion isn't evidence that this article is notable. You could, however, use a previous AfD decision as precedent. At the moment, two of the pages you've listed are now up for deletion and one has three different improvement needed widgets. Dhasenan (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because this programming language is just as notable as Go, Rust or Julia. Here is some extra sources which may prove it's notability: http://3dicc.com/terf-news/2015/3/25/terf-rendering-power-upgrade-announced, http://nimio.us/ -- dom96 (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Nim is a programming language that is taking off and getting a lot of notice by 100's of developers. Developers around the world are reviewing NIM, see: http://goran.krampe.se/category/nim/, http://ckkashyap.blogspot.in/2015/02/nim-is-best-programming-language.html, http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/02/15/0411217/nim-programming-language-gaining-traction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeront (talk • contribs) 23:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not as notable as Go etc... but popular enough to have a page on Wikipedia. I am tired of the fanboyism about this language. Macaldo (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is my language of choice for scripting tasks as a replacement for Python. I'm also researching how to use a subset of this language as THE next systems programming language, especially for embedded systems.

This language is simply too important (even if presently unknown) to limit peoples exposure to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:15C:1:10:19E3:CEC1:CD2A:71EA (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

By what measure is the language too important? --Dallbee (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

As Dom96 pointed out, we at 3DICC (http://www.3dicc.com) use Nim to develop our next range of products currently in use by a range of large organisations. We just issued a press release partly describing this (http://3dicc.com/terf-news/2015/3/25/terf-rendering-power-upgrade-announced) and if that doesn't count as a source, then what does? Gokr (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

A press release is not a reliable source. But even if it were, it would likely be considered WP:PRIMARY (or at least, not WP:INDEPENDENT) since it states that the creator of Nim has joined the project. Either way, it does not contribute to establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Those policies pertain to risk of bias; they have no relevance to notability and are being misused here. The logic here is absurd ... if someone who invented a weapon were then hired by the army to put that weapon into production, that would make the weapon more notable; it would be extremely silly to claim that the fact that the army is producing the weapon isn't relevant because of lack of independence because they hired its inventor. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, it kinda makes it almost impossible for us. No, there isn't a book yet. No, we haven't seen any recent article in published press, although its bound to appear more soon. What kind of source would actually work here? Gokr (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that sort of the point? If something isn't notable enough to have strong sources, it shouldn't have a place in wikipedia. Dallbee (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Contested Deletion

The language is notable enough to have an article about it in Dr. Dobbs (http://www.drdobbs.com/open-source/nimrod-a-new-systems-programming-languag/240165321 -- that the author is the developer of the language isn't relevant; Dr. Dobbs, not he, is the publisher, and of course would seek the person best able to talk about the language). It was also written up at Lambda the Ultimate (http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4749), a very high quality source of programming language discussion. There is also a presentation about the language at InfoQ (http://www.infoq.com/presentations/nimrod), a leading IT educational organization. A move to delete this article is ill-informed and ill-considered, and makes WP the lesser. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with this statement. I am deeply disturbed by repeated attempts to erase this entry from Wikipedia. --Paul Jurczak (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I have never programmed in Nim. I read about Nim from some other source. Having gone to Wikipedia, I found nothing about the language, so I created a stub page. The language is unlikely to become the next C or Fortran, but I see Wikipedia as a place for general knowledge. There are plenty of articles about somewhat arcane and obscure things on Wikipedia. That's okay. I vote keep the article. --Greg Hawley (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Invalid restore from draft

The article was restored from Draft:Nim (programming language) by copy-paste by Dom96 here. This would preferably require administrator assistance to remove the current article and move the draft (Regardless of the outcome of the AfD since the page is likely to be restored later on anyway). Not many commits have been made to the current article compared to the draft, so losing the history of the contributors to the current article would be less of a inconvenience than losing the history of the old article.
Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This is somewhat urgent, as changes are made to the current article which might have to be restored without proper author attribution. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)~

A page made by fanboys

Even if you can with a lot of tricks let nim code run on Android (after all it is a Linux OS), it is not enough to claim "Nim may be used to make an Android application". That is just false, an hoax. Macaldo (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you not see released Android applications programmed in Nim. If Apple says the app can be placed in the apple store what makes you say you can not use it for creating an Android Application? Itsmeront (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

...What is this drivel? You can use batch files to construct an android or iOS application, the question is- do you want to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.196.206 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability

The current article is extremely weak on sources to establish Notability, but here's at least one good source that can/should be integrated into the article somewhere: http://www.infoworld.com/article/3157745/application-development/nim-language-draws-from-best-of-python-rust-go-and-lisp.html

P.S. See WP:Bombard. Spamming a ton of poor sources into an article is not a successful way to keep it from being deleted. In fact including too many poor sources can backfire. If a reviewer checks half the refs and find none of them are good enough to support Notability, they may conclude the other half are equally useless and vote delete. Alsee (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It is now April 2021, and even though the two latest delete-nominations ended with keep, the article itself still doesn't convey notability. With only a handful of exceptions, the more than 50 inline references are either primary sources or GitHub repos. The only exception, other than two YouTube videos and events where Nim was talked about, is an InfoWorld article! The only reason I think it may have some notability is that apparently it has enough fanpeeps to get this huge article, that's full of excessive details, into Wikipedia... --143.176.30.65 (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

And if you look at the latest delete-nomination discussion, the only additional refs that people could find are either websites discussing Nim reaching version 1.0, or non-reliable sources. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it fails to meet WP:GNG; Mostly. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 06:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The modern logo for the Nim programming language.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this article "too technical?"

@Humphrey Tribble: Which concepts in this article are "too technical" for readers to understand? Jarble (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, Jarble (talk · contribs), I apologise for leaving a a flippant comment instead of a more helpful explanation at the outset.

The template's purpose is to flag "excessive jargon, without enough explanation of concepts and too difficult for readers to understand without a background in the field." So it can suggest an article could be improved or simply alert readers that it will be heavy going.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Technical language governs. MOS recommends that the introduction, especially, should be understandable by educated people without having to follow links. But the introduction of Nim (programming language) has 21 links in only two sentences. That second sentence is also very long. It sounds rather like a manufacturer's description.

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal adds to MOS. The inclusion of numerous programming examples in Nim is certainly like a manual or textbook.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable has practical suggestions for dealing with complex subjects.

Let me know if I haven't explained it adequately. Humpster (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)