Talk:List of language developers: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "I think it would be more useful to split the Vendors and Organizations lists into two parts: (1) active (2) inactive (for want of a better term). As it's a wiki, if an "inacti...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I think it would be more useful to split the Vendors and Organizations lists into two parts: (1) active (2) inactive (for want of a better term). As it's a wiki, if an "inactive" implementation is actually "active", or vice versa, that can be easily fixed and referenced appropriately. I also think a page called "APL Implementations" could be created with a redirect to this page. The Language developer page also includes languages derived from APL such as J and K, which is fine, but also I think would be more useful if put into separate lists. | I think it would be more useful to split the Vendors and Organizations lists into two parts: (1) active (2) inactive (for want of a better term). As it's a wiki, if an "inactive" implementation is actually "active", or vice versa, that can be easily fixed and referenced appropriately. I also think a page called "APL Implementations" could be created with a redirect to this page. The Language developer page also includes languages derived from APL such as J and K, which is fine, but also I think would be more useful if put into separate lists. | ||
:([[User:RLevine|RLevine]], remember to sign comments with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>). Given that hardware vendors are strictly a subset of inactive developers, and all the individual developers listed have been active in the past few years, we could do both: inactive developers with subheadings hardware vendors and other developers, and active developers with subheadings vendors, organizations (although I remain skeptical that the GNU APL community can really be considered an organization that develops APL), and independent developers. --[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] ([[User talk:Marshall|talk]]) 20:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:42, 20 November 2020
I think it would be more useful to split the Vendors and Organizations lists into two parts: (1) active (2) inactive (for want of a better term). As it's a wiki, if an "inactive" implementation is actually "active", or vice versa, that can be easily fixed and referenced appropriately. I also think a page called "APL Implementations" could be created with a redirect to this page. The Language developer page also includes languages derived from APL such as J and K, which is fine, but also I think would be more useful if put into separate lists.
- (RLevine, remember to sign comments with
~~~~). Given that hardware vendors are strictly a subset of inactive developers, and all the individual developers listed have been active in the past few years, we could do both: inactive developers with subheadings hardware vendors and other developers, and active developers with subheadings vendors, organizations (although I remain skeptical that the GNU APL community can really be considered an organization that develops APL), and independent developers. --Marshall (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)