Talk:Rebol

Functional languages category
I removed this, and the change was reverted. REBOL has a few features of functional programming languages, as does Perl. And Lua. And even C++ now has lambdas. But does that mean they're functional programming languages? No. REBOL at its core is highly imperative, as are the other languages I listed. Dgpop (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "REBOL has a few features of functional programming languages, as does Perl. And Lua. And even C++ now has lambdas." - Rebol is neither like Perl, nor like Lua or C++. For example, it does not have statements, so your likening it to the other languages is not correct. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The question is what the criteria are for something to be considered a functional language. Rebol is derived from Logo and Lisp, the "EB" in "REBOL" stands for "Expression Based", and functions have always been a first class datatype. Rebol is not a purely functional language, but I don't think the link to functional programming implies that it is. Gregg-Irwin (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed, when we compare Rebol to Lisp, we see that it is more similar to it than to, for example, Perl or C++. Lisp is also multiparadigm and functional. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The "copy edit" tag
I do agree with the usefulness of copy editing. Having said that, I strongly disagree with the "information noise" created by the "copy edit" tag. In my opinion it is obvious that the page (as many other pages) "may require copy editing". It is a general Wikipedia policy to encourage such activities. Whether that should be explicitly stated in the article making unnecessary noise is a different question, however. I, as a reader am not interested in reading it in the article for indefinite time, since it is actually unrelated to the article subject. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think some of the parts that can be rewritten; primarily because the article is too big for a language not as popular as others. "History" and "Implementation" can be merged. "Ease of Use", "Syntax" and "Semantics" can be merged. Top Section can be thinned, the content then placed into a new "Description" section. leaflord 06:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaflord (talk • contribs)


 * "I think some of the parts that can be rewritten;" - and how exactly is that related to the fact that the tag is just unnecessary noise? Ladislav Mecir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

REBOL → Rebol – Since the open sourcing, the community consensus has been to not capitalize the language name. (Similar to what happened with LISP, so I followed the precedent set in that article). I've provided a citation from the language creator's blog and noted that he now writes it as "Rebol" as well. His company, however, is still called "REBOL Technologies". There exists a redirect page for "Rebol" already, so this move cannot be done without administrator assistance. Metaeducation (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's see this move happen soon. The change in capitalization has been talked about for quite a while and it would be useful to put a semblance of authority on the matter as implied by this article. Wikiwikiwu (talk)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moving or copying contents from the lead
The "Concept and idea" section was added by. The fact is that the section contained just the material previously present in the article lead, and removed from the lead. I reverted the change to the status quo explaining that the most important attributes of the article subject should, per WP:LEAD be listed in the article lead. Instead of following the WP:BRD policy, and starting a discussion trying to find a consensus with the changes to the article lead, just reverted my reversal. After a reminder that the WP:BRD policy should be respected, copied the parts of the lead to the newly created "Concept and idea" section, this time not removing them from the lead. Please, refer to the WP:BRD and try to find consensus in the discussion instead of forcing changes by edit war.

Here are the reasons why the changes do not improve the article:


 * The claim that Rebol influenced JSON is one of the most important informations that naturally belong to the article lead. The information is sourced and verified. There is no need to duplicate or move the information to the "Concept and idea" section, which is not an appropriate place for the claim, since it is too far fetched to think that the inventor of the language had a concept and idea that the new language he is designing should influence JSON.
 * The claim that the dialecting is a notable property of the language is illustrated by a citation of designer's words in the lead. There is also the "Dialects" section meant to discuss dialects. For this reason, there is no need to discuss dialects also in a new "Concept and idea" section, especially when the text used is just a copy of a part of the article lead.
 * The fact that the language has an open source implementation is listed as one of the most important attributes of many other programing languages. In this case I also find it one of the most important attributes of the language and oppose the attempts to remove this information from the article lead.
 * Summing up, neither duplicating the text from the lead, nor the removal of the most important attributes from the lead can improve the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Infact, I began to structure this currently sadly under-structured article. Quotes should be not in the lead. The history of a topic should be not in the lead only, but should be an own, pronounced section. The reception section is completely missing, also weakly mixed into the lead. My try to start the needed restructuring was unfriendly reverted instead of working togehter trying to improve this weak article. My second extended edit included the open-source reference, why I was considering this edit as some compromise (which was ignored). On the JSON interpretation I agree, it should be part of a reception (or history) section primarily and only if considered of over-arching importance, additionally part of the lead. Shaddim (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * regarding "this currently sadly under-structured article" - with 11 sections and 2 subsections neither "sadness" nor "under-structuredness" come to mind.
 * "Concept and idea" is hardly a necessary section name, especially without a definite idea what the section should contain.
 * regarding history: the "History" section already exists and contains the chronological informations
 * regarding the "Reception" section - that is not an over-archingly important section name for a programming language article
 * regarding the quotes: they are selected to describe the important facts and attributes Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * regarding understructured: only 1 layer deep structure with pretty arbitrary selected sections. needs to be completly re-structured with 4-6 relevant and wiki confomr sections and preferrable 2-3 layer depth
 * history was/is incomplete and should be extended by several crucial aspects scattered around everywhere else in the article.
 * "reception and impact" is one most importan sectiosn for virtually all kinds of wikipedia article
 * quotes are a opinion which should be not in the lead, where should be only well backed interpretation of valuable secondary sources in a simple, compact formulation. Shaddim (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "only 1 layer deep structure" - the structure was actually two layer deep, are there any reasons why you need to make verifiably false statements here?
 * "pretty arbitrary selected sections" - the sections are related to the article subject, and in that sense not arbitrary
 * "needs to be completly re-structured with 4-6 relevant and wiki confomr sections and preferrable 2-3 layer depth" - I understand it so that that is your plan (unsupported by WP:STYLE). I have no idea what "wiki confomr sections" means, though.
 * '"reception and impact" is one most importan sectiosn for virtually all kinds of wikipedia article' - this statement is unsuported by WP:STYLE. I checked several WP:FA like: Acute myeloid leukemia, Ashford v Thornton, Problem of Apollonius, which verified my suspicion that this information is not reliable.
 * "quotes are a opinion which should be not in the lead" - I checked WP:LEAD and found out that this information is not reliable either.
 * Edit looks like made by your sockpuppet. It also tries to make a false impression that the changes were discussed here and achieved some consensus, which is far from the truth. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your accusing of me being a socket puppeteer is unfounded and rude. Step back from such unfounded claims. And don't keep on pushing your personal agenda by discrediting clear mindeded IPs. (your argueing that this article ist structured to two layers as the semantics section had the irrelavant "sublayers": "do" and "parse", is laughable) Shaddim (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir is mostly impossible to get along with and wants to dominate. I suggest you ignore him and make your changes because he will never agree to cooperative editing and has major ownership issues on these article. Bitcoin is a case in point where he relentlessly does what he does. I would also report his accusation of sockpuppetry if you care for drama boards. He does a brinkmanship type of insulting. That is his profile. Your changes seem more correct than his in the article. Earl King (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Programming Language WP Style/Guide
Is there a template, guide, or reference standard article specifically for computer/programming languages? If so, can we use that as a starting point for a refresh, or as a concrete target to move towards? Gregg-Irwin (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Advert and refimprove tags

 * Recently, the advert tag was added to the article without any indication or discussion which parts of the text should be improved. This is to determine which parts need improvement.
 * At the same time, the refimprove tag was added, while there is no "citation needed" tag to indicate which information needs citation. This discussion is meant to find out. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Written like an advertisement
This article looks as if it was taken from an AD or the projects documentation. 94.75.77.210 (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)