Obviously anything on the esolang wiki counts, but what about less obscure languages like Factor and Arc? I don't know that I'd call them underground, but they're definitely not mainstream. What about Lua and Smalltalk? They get a lot of play in certain circles, but in my experience, they remain largely unknown to the average working programmer. Rough consensus ought to be enough, maybe with some basic guidelines. e.g. If it's commercially available, it's not underground (Smalltalk). Would we want to turn away a well-written article about Prolog? -Aaron
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:39:56AM -0500, Aaron Olson wrote: > Obviously anything on the esolang wiki counts, but what about less obscure > languages like Factor and Arc? I don't know that I'd call them underground, > but they're definitely not mainstream. Oh, I'm sure they'll want to be included. I'd say, if the author doesn't want to be called underground and included then their language won't be. Pretty simple. > What about Lua and Smalltalk? They get a lot of play in certain circles, but > in my experience, they remain largely unknown to the average working > programmer. Just to piss everyone off I was going to say if the language is on the TIOBE then it's not underground. So, Smalltalk yes, Lua no. :-) > Would we want to turn away a well-written article about Prolog? After the twitter storm where I said there needed to be selection criteria for what gets printed, it'll have to be something like: * Every language gets documented on the website. No matter what. As long as it actually exists (or existed) and functions (functioned). * We publish all the languages through Lulu's API by the year they were invented, minus any languages where the author objects. That should be good enough for a start. -- Zed A. Shaw http://zedshaw.com/
TIOBE is a reasonable exclusion list. :) Perhaps languages who've not been mentioned in a publication with a readership > than X where X is some sufficiently small number to denote a lack of mainstream interest? On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Zed A. Shaw <zedshaw@zedshaw.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:39:56AM -0500, Aaron Olson wrote: >> Obviously anything on the esolang wiki counts, but what about less obscure >> languages like Factor and Arc? I don't know that I'd call them underground, >> but they're definitely not mainstream. > > Oh, I'm sure they'll want to be included. I'd say, if the author > doesn't want to be called underground and included then their language > won't be. Pretty simple. > >> What about Lua and Smalltalk? They get a lot of play in certain circles, but >> in my experience, they remain largely unknown to the average working >> programmer. > > Just to piss everyone off I was going to say if the language is on the > TIOBE then it's not underground. So, Smalltalk yes, Lua no. :-) > >> Would we want to turn away a well-written article about Prolog? > > After the twitter storm where I said there needed to be selection > criteria for what gets printed, it'll have to be something like: > > * Every language gets documented on the website. No matter what. As > long as it actually exists (or existed) and functions (functioned). > * We publish all the languages through Lulu's API by the year they were > invented, minus any languages where the author objects. > > That should be good enough for a start. > > -- > Zed A. Shaw > http://zedshaw.com/ >