This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
This article is specifically about the ACM HOPL conferences. The accepted papers for the upcoming HOPL III are appropriate, but I don't think the "Brief History" sections should be here unless they directly relate to the conference or procedings. In my opinion, those sections should be moved to history of programming languages instead. --IanOsgood17:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has suggested that some of the HOPL page content be merged into the history of programming languages page. I, for one, dislike this idea. HOPL is a unique conference in that it goes into depth on important languages (once every 15 years). As part of the preparation for HOPL III, the program committee is trying to create a community view of the history of the classes of languages covered by the specific papers in HOPL III. Hence the history material in the HOPL III page is not a fully general history, rather it concentrates on material associated with the specific content to be in the conference. We would like the experiment to continue here on Wikipedia and it would make little sense to have that happen in the context of a general purpose page. --n2cjn
I see, you are using the HOPL page as a public workspace, which will eventually be cleaned up. I'm fine with that, but I worry that some other wikipedian might come along and wipe it, citing WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. You might want to use a different public wiki for this task. One possibility is WikiWikiWeb, since one of its interests is the c2:InformalHistoryOfProgrammingIdeas. --IanOsgood20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly be reasonable to "clean up" the page after the conference (incorporating the historical material into the indicated Wikipedia page), but one might also consider an overview of the genres/paradigms covered in the conference to be a good piece of background material for the understanding of HOPL. In fact, our conference historian has indicated that the overviews of the genres may be more than just a convenience, but necessary to full appreciation of the detailed material in the individual papers. We certainly do not want to misuse Wikipedia in any sense, but we hoped that this in depth capture of community's history could serve a double purpose - both explaining what happened during the period HOPL III covers and an encylopaedia-like depth that could only happen on Wikipedia.--n2cjn
It seems as if there is no more discussion regarding merger at this time. Can we remove the link on the main page? --n2cjn
On April 8, 2008 The entire section on the entire overview of history of individual paradigms ("Brief Histories") was dropped by a user with no discussion at all. This did not represent an article from the conference (as the user supposed), but rather an attempt by the HOPL community to build some context for the specific languages presented in HOPL III. Given the amount of work that went into that section, by the community, it would have been appreciated if that material had been moved elsewhere (as described above in the discussion page) or perhaps having been flagged for further discussion here. --n2cjn 20 April 2008.
I came across this page and its "Brief Histories" while preparing for a panel session at HOPL III. The OO languages section had an error: it stated that Eiffel was not described at the first OOPSLA. In fact it was, although the paper, Genericity versus Inheritance, did not include the word "Eiffel" in its title. With some trepidation since my previous attempt to edit Eiffel-related material on Wikipedia led to criticism, I have made the correction, since it is appropriate to correct a factual error whether or not one is involved in the subject matter. B-Meyer13:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
