Talk:Ceylon (programming language)

The article is awful

This article is rather awful. The only features of Ceylon that it lists are features of Java; it does nothing to demonstrate how Ceylon differs from Java, other than minor syntax differences like "satisfies" instead of "implements". -- 98.108.195.85 (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to Ceylon (programming language)

I think this article should be moved to fit the pattern for all other programming languages. - Sikon (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, this was  Done a while ago. —Galaktos (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of section on enumerated types

I’d like to challenge this revert by Catchiaro (talk · contribs) of an edit by Lukedegruchy (talk · contribs). The argument for the revert was that “this person is closely associated with the project and posted biased information”. The author, as discussed on his talk page, does not deny the association, but if I understand WP:NPOV and Pahazzard (talk · contribs)’s comment on the talk page correctly, that alone is not sufficient cause for reverting an edit. The revert summary also claims that “biased information” was posted, but I don’t see this: the removed paragraph looks completely objective to me, without any potentially biased comparisons to other languages (e. g. “a rather elegant mechanism” or similar phrases). @Catchiaro: can you clarify which parts of the removed text you consider biased?

(Full disclosure: I am also associated with Ceylon, though I’d like to keep this account anonymous, without connection to my real identity.) —Galaktos (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with that challenge. “this person is closely associated with the project" is not a valid reason to revert. As to whether the information is biased I am not knowledgable enough to comment, although on the face of it the wording is fairly objective. It would be considerate to let @Catchiaro: respond before I it revert myself. Pahazzard (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. When I made the edit, I did a quick search for Lukedegruchy, and he came up as a longtime contributor and advocate for the project. I see that Pahazzard feels this does not consititute COI. Please note that the Ceylon project is experiencing a trolling issue, and they are accusing me personally, because of this edit, of being a troll. This might be the real reason for the challenge, but I'm not sure. @Pahazzard: I did revert my undo since project association/advocacy is not a problem. (Catchiaro) 11:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

I see that Pahazzard feels this does not consititute COI. – I might be mistaken, and Pahazzard: feel free to correct me if so, but I don’t think Pahazzard commented on presence of COI at all. Rather, they clarified that a COI, by itself, is not enough to warrant a revert. As far as I understand, WP:NPOV is about content, and its bias, not the editor.

This might be the real reason for the challenge, but I'm not sure. – of course it isn’t. It’s in the best interest of both Ceylon and Wikipedia that this article be as good as possible, and since I like both projects, I’ll speak up whenever I see an edit that in my opinion deteriorates the quality of this article, regardless of who the author might be. —Galaktos (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Catchiaro and Galaktos, to clarify that I did recognise the COI, but my explanation was that a COI is not justification in itself a valid reason to revert an edit. I'll profess that I am no expert on this, and I have largely learned by my own mistakes and my own COI's. My understanding is that whilst a person with a COI is discouraged to continue editing the article, it is not mandatory. But anyone attempting to hide a COI is likely to get their edits undone as a matter of course, or worse. So once a COI is declared it makes things easier, and hopefully genuine edits with a NPOV will not get reverted. That said, other editors viewpoints on this issue can vary greatly, and disagreements can break out (hence the person with a COI is discouraged to continue editing), at which point its best to back off completely and leave things to cool down.

Hopefully your edits, COI or not, can continue amicably on this article in the interests of its improvement and betterment, but you just never know who else might be watching. Anyway, I hope this explanation is of some help, regards Pahazzard (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I’ve been a Wikipedia contributor for some time now (first dewiki edit on 2 January 2009, 15 years ago; nowadays mostly active on Wikidata). I have also over the past few years become involved with the Ceylon project. I would like to improve this article, which should be in the interest of both Ceylon and Wikipedia. However, I probably have a WP:COI, and am unsure how to proceed. Specifically, I would like to add to the Features section, since it seems incomplete at the moment. This seems like a naturally objective section, and I would try my hardest to not let any bias slip in (for example, in other contexts, speaking for myself, I might describe something as “a rather elegant solution”, or “clearly superior to <Language X>”; obviously, this is unacceptable in an encyclopedia). Would this be acceptable, or in violation of Wikipedia policies? —Galaktos (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Galaktos, I would advise you to read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#COI_editing_strongly_discouraged and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Edit_requests_from_COI_or_paid_editors and then decide for yourself how you wish to proceed, Pahazzard (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Pahazzard: Thank you for your advice. I’ve decided that I’ll restrict this account to non-COI edits, and won’t use it to work on this article or related topics. —Galaktos (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Revert Galaktos' edits

I received the following claims on mail: "Galaktos is a core team member of Ceylon and an advocate for the project." I think the COI is clear here and I vote that his edits are reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catchiaro (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Catchiaro: We’ve been over this above. A COI, in and of itself, is not a sufficient reason for reverting edits. Can you point out any specific, problematic sections of the article? If so, feel free to improve them. (I won’t, because of my COI.)

Also, I’d appreciate it if the next time you have a problem with my edits, you’d ping me – either using {{Ping}} or simply by linking my name. I didn’t see this for almost three weeks. —Galaktos (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

RIP, Ceylon

Unfortunately, months before the acquisition of RedHat by IBM, Ceylon development slowly became stagnant. A beautiful language is now dead. Anoop Manakkalath (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Why was the development team arrested?

The articles mentions that the language was acquired by the Eclipse Foundation at the same time as (presumably because of) its development team being arrested. However, it neither provides any source for this fact, nor any further information as to what crime(s) was/were committed. NicolinoChess31415926 (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)