:Talk:Lasso (programming language)

The given source "mentions" Lasso, but demonstrates the reverse: it is not a "popular" language. Another source is needed, to replace this one. TEDickey (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The link does not directly articulate popularity. However, as a comparable scripting language Server-side scripting, Lasso would be the 7th most popular native web language in the world (after PHP, Python, Perl, ASP, Coldfusion, Lua and Ruby - according to this particular site, quoted by the author on the LassoLab talk page as an indicator of popularity). The 7th most popular car company is Bugatti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_automobiles#Brand_bestsellers). The 7th most popular spoken language is Bangali (http://listverse.com/2008/06/26/top-10-most-spoken-languages-in-the-world/). Perhaps we should delete those from Wikipedia? ;) --Seanstephens (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

:The charts in the given site illustrate what the developers of that site conceived as popularity. If you would like to invent a new meaning for the term, be aware of WP:OR as a guideline TEDickey (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

:I'm not sure the authors of that site explicitly state popularity, except that the language should register in "most of our existing data sources". By that specified indicator, the authors of the site are including all languages listed as "popular" - which follows from the site title "Programming Language Popularity". By inclusion on this site, a language can therefore be defined as "popular" - Popularity.--Sean Stephens (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggest replacing "popular" with "widely used". Popular is a very vague and subjective term, and we programmers like precision and clarity. Stevepiercy (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)stevepiercy

:I'll buy that. It's also how other languages are described - without citation - so it stands to reason that this description can be used in this context as well. I say, make it so! --Sean Stephens (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

:Alternatively - as no other languages on Wikipedia describe popularity or usage other than Python (which, I will note, uses "widely used" citing links where "widely used" does not appear) - I suggest we remove the subjective "popular" and/or "widely used" from the initial sentence altogether. --Sean Stephens (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

:Widely-used should be quantifiable (comparing with the obvious https://www.google.com/search?as_filetype=lasso#psj=1&q=filetype:html and https://www.google.com/search?as_filetype=lasso#psj=1&q=filetype:php - among others, even if google's result counts were useful - shows lasso as an insignificant fraction of what google reports). langpop uses google for 3 of the 8 charts, by the way. TEDickey (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

:You seem to be applying your own definition of "widely used". If you would like to invent a new meaning for the term, be aware of WP:OR as a guideline. By your own admission, https://www.google.com/search?as_filetype=lasso#q=filetype:lasso (17MM) is one fifth of https://www.google.com/search?as_filetype=lasso#q=filetype:py (78MM) (the file extension for Python, where the words are used uncontested - you are confusing Python and PHP, methinks). So, using the uncontested article for Python as the basis - you would agree that Lasso would be, under this definition, "widely used". --Sean Stephens (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of cleaning up the article for readibility and consistency, I propose (and am WP:BOLD) just removing the references to popularity. --Sean Stephens (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to find a citation for this fact, as per WP:COMMON. If you check the definition of this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAMP_(software_bundle)

You'll see that it classically involves Linux, Apache, MySQL and a middleware language. By Lasso being released on Linux, Apache and MySQL (and Apple's OSX also inheriting this environment), it's more of a fact than something that can be cited. Trying to cite a source for this would contribute nothing to its reliability while acting as a detriment to its readability (Wikipedia:Citation overkill). Ergo, I propose removing the citation request or rewording this sentence to something that doesn't require citation. It's not fallacious. It's just an obvious fact to a developer, and part of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanstephens (talk • contribs) 14:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

:Lacking a source giving the analysis, it's needless editorializing. About 2/3 of the section suffers from this problem. TEDickey (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a basis in literature (or fact) that Lasso 8.x is the most popular language, by the definitions stated above in section "popular (sic)". There are, to my knowledge, not enough historical records to assert such a claim. Ergo, am changing the text to reflect various products introduced by Omnipilot - and a note about the longevity of the product (Lasso 8 was, by simple math, the longest interval between version releases). --Sean Stephens (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Referring to the product as partially open-source is misleading, given the provided source. Many proprietary/closed-source products provide coding samples to support their documentation. TEDickey (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

:The (now broken) link references the central repository for Lasso's source files, not "code samples". The link is here: [http://source.lassosoft.com/svn/lasso/lasso9_source/trunk/]. If you click the links, you'll see you can only get to 70% of it or so (which changes as people edit the repos). --Sean Stephens (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

:That's the same link. What people expect for "open source" is information regarding their ability to reuse the information presented separately from the product. There is none that I see; it looks like coding samples, making the introduction of "open source" both superfluous and misleading. TEDickey (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As per request, added an example of open-source contributions based on linked source, so as not to be superfluous or misleading.--Sean Stephens (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the description as partially open source is apt. The link [http://source.lassosoft.com/svn/lasso/lasso9_source/trunk/] to Lasso 9's source provides the code for many structures that would generally be considered to be "built-in" to a language or to its standard library. The source includes code for the boolean type, integer type, decimal type, string type, array type, database manipulation, and more. These are non-trivial foundation level types in the object hierarchy. It is possible to radically alter the language by branching the source and redefining basic actions like string comparisons or array inserts. Users can and have crafted completely different methodologies such as an object oriented method of database manipulation which is actually faster than the built-in procedural methods [https://github.com/zeroloop/ds] Fletc3her (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

:that's not responsive: you're referring to a term which has acquired a fairly specific meaning, but your source lacks one of the characteristics. TEDickey (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

:Most of the files have no license or copyright. Some do, such as [http://source.lassosoft.com/svn/lasso/lasso9_source/trunk/LJAPI/ljapi9.cpp this], which grants no rights to use (other than fair use, which would not suffice for developers) TEDickey (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

:Given the link provided, the best recommendation is to simply remove the comment about open source. TEDickey (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

:As per the definition by WP of Open Source, I would agree - Lasso is not Open Source (capital "O", capital "S"), but rather allows access to its source, more akin to Shared Source. Perhaps change to "allows partial access to its source code", which is correct and certainly not superfluous or misleading. This point - the mix of source-code availability and licensing structure - is a regularly questioned point and differentiates Lasso from other comparable popular scripting languages. --Sean Stephens (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

:It's not Shared source either - that has again a well-defined meaning (licensing). I don't see any links to the "regularly questioned point" (and Wikipedia isn't the repository for answers - those belong someplace where they can be discussed as reliable sources TEDickey (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

:Sorry - I think you missed my suggestion. I'll WP:BOLD and make the change - let me know what you think. --Sean Stephens (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I am on a mission to ensure this article is free from needless editorializing and follows WP:NPOV explicitly. I may care about Lasso - but I also care about keeping faith with the standards of Wikipedia. I'll be making edits as I recognize them to ensure the philosophy of WP:EDITORIALIZING has been held to the highest standard. Suggestions welcome!--Sean Stephens (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:15|one external link|15 external links}} on Lasso (programming language). Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=712838897 my edit]. You may add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.blueworld.com/lasso/documentation/Docs/intro.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.blueworld.com/blueworld/products/LassoPress.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.blueworld.com/blueworld/news/9.8.97-clarisacq.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.blueworld.com/blueworld/news/lasso2.0.pr.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.blueworld.com/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.blueworld.com/lasso/Lasso%20Manual.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.blueworld.com/lasso/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://blueworld.com/blueworld/news/lasso2.0.pr.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.blueworld.com/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://blueworld.com/blueworld/news/10.7.98-L3Release.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.blueworld.com/blueworld/news/4.14.99-Lasso3.5Ship.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://blueworld.com/blueworld/news/01.05.00-LassoWDE3.6Ship.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://blueworld.com/blueworld/news/10.02.00LassoLite365.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.blueworld.com/blueworld/news/02.26.02-LP5Release.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.blueworld.com/blueworld/news/09.04.02-L6ProdLine.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lasso (programming language). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116080326/http://www.langpop.com/ to http://www.langpop.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)