Talk:Lasso (programming language)

Archives

popular (sic)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GHITS are not reliable source

See WP:GHITS to understand why this promotional statement has no reliable source TEDickey (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most language popularity projects on the web use WP:GHITS - either as raw searches on "X programming" or file type as an indicator of language popularity. As these sites (e.g. langpop.com, http://lang-index.sourceforge.net/, etc.) are the basis of Wikipedia articles on popularity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=langpop&go=Go), this argument is inherently weak. Suggest redacting this inclusion. --Seanstephens (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Most experienced editors appear to frown on using ghits - hence the guideline which I pointed out to you. TEDickey (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though experience editors may frown WP:DNB, the point stands: popularity indexes use this logic, so it stands to reason - as reliable sources - in this context it is valid. Perhaps this needs to be changed to point at the popularity site data as noted? --Sean Stephens (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

misuse of "often"

Two closely-related examples do not provide a basis for stating that something is done "often". Those may be the only examples from several million possibilities, making the statement non-factual TEDickey (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a good point. Although they may be "often" compared in the Lasso community, they aren't "often" compared in the media (the basis of most of Wikipedia's knowledge base). Editing... --Seanstephens (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per note above, with removal of the word "often", other citations can be removed surrounding comparison to other programming languages. One remains viable on http://w3techs.com - it is a list of "Server-side Programming Languages Market Reports", which is by default, a comparison. --Sean Stephens (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is pretty clear that they are paid-for products, and as such likely to be less neutral than wanted for a reliable source, and unlikely to be verifiable TEDickey (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's use our classic langpop.com as a reference, if you believe it is critical to have a reference. Ironically, the languages are comparable, based on facts previously stated in the article. Ergo, it's WP:CK. The article is now suffering from WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING and WP:OVERTAGGING. --Sean Stephens (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

As per the WP:NOTABLY guidelines, enough notable sources exist to clearly show Lasso as notable. These include;

November, 2001 - FileMaker Pro Advisor Magazine publishes an article titled Getting Started with Lasso that provides a step-by-step introduction to writing Lasso code for beginners.
November, 2000 - Macworld magazine reviews Lasso Studio for Dreamwevaer giving it 4.5 out of 5 mice and citing it as "the easiest way to create a database-driven Web site."
April 19, 1999 - Infoworld Magazine cites Lasso with its new XML support.
February 1, 1999 - EmediaWeekly Magazine cites new JavaScript module in Lasso.
February, 1999 - MacNow Magazine awarded the Lasso Web Data Engine a Reviewers Choice Award.
December 14, 1998 - EmediaWeekly Magazine cites Lasso's new support for Microsoft Personal Web Server on Windows 95/98.
October 28, 1998 - Microtimes (circ 250,000) provides feature story on how Kaiser Permanente, one of the world's largest HMOs, deploys Lasso and FileMaker throughout their organization.
October 19, 1998 - EmediaWeekly Magazine features Lasso 3 with Windows NT and ODBC support.
August, 1998 - Macworld magazine awards Lasso 2.5 its highest mouse rating with 4.5 mice.
June 15, 1998 - PC Week covers Lasso 2.5 as part of feature on e-commerce and FileMaker Pro.
April 15, 1998 - Lasso 2.5 Earns 4 Stars in MacWEEK Review Highlights include the following:

"Lasso's depth and power are astounding." "It offers good security features and an extraordinarily high degree of control over the presentation of information." "The Lasso Server is stable, easy to configure and can handle several dozen simultaneous HTTP requests with ease."

June 2, 1997 - Lasso 2.0 cited in MacWEEK "Lasso 2.0 gains Java hooks" article. The complete article is available at: http://www8.zdnet.com/macweek/mw_1122/in_lasso.html
May 22 1997 - MacWEEK cites Blue World and Lasso in Symantec Visual Cafe Pro article. See http://www8.zdnet.com/macweek/mw_1121/in_visual_cafe.html
April 25, 1997 - Lasso is cited in MacWEEK magazine feature story entitled "New Web tools help servers link to legacy data." Regarding online commerce capabilities, Lasso is cited as a "good, low-cost choice... as it provides basic cyberstore templates". MacWEEK also states, "Lasso's strengths are it extensive built-in commerce and e-mail features.". Quoting Dave Parkhurst of Education Technology Inc., MacWEEK states that "...he Dave P. is convinced that Lasso is the most powerful of the products. 'We also had to have a tool that we could support in-house without a team of expensive programmers.' Parkhurst said. 'Lasso again won out.'"
Feb. 14, 1997 - Lasso Wins Macworld Editors' Choice Award and recieves 4 stars. Macworld Magazine concludes " Of the three I tested, Lasso was the fastest.. " and that Lasso offers "...excellent support for advanced FileMaker Pro features, outstanding formatting control, fast performance, and thorough documentation..." Macworld magazine concludes "Lasso is a database-publishing demon".

Question of notability to be removed. --Sean Stephens (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removal of reference to primary sources as well. Though citations may be currently lacking, no relevant sources list the current primary source (LassoSoft Inc.) directly. --Sean Stephens (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be quoting from #18. Without reading the original articles which are quoted, it's not possible to filter out advertisements and press-releases, and see which are third-party reviews. TEDickey (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation - see WP:NRVE. Ergo, the sources are notable, despite your not having read them. Notability is not temporary WP:NOTTEMPORARY. There are also a dozen other notable sources in this post. The journals within which these articles exist are listed on Wikipedia (e.g. MacWEEK/EmediaWeekly, MacWorld, Infoworld, PC Week, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanstephens (talk • contribs) 00:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question of notability to be removed. I've added a few additional sources which document that the language was notable enough to warrant review in a major computer publication, MacWorld, and that it was considered notable enough to be a runner up for an award, losing out to Dreamweaver and tying with the earlier version of Blogger.

Editors' Choice Awards for Internet and Development for Lasso Studio "Editors' Choice Awards: Internet and Development". MacWorld. IDG. Retrieved 28 October 2013.

Concurrent favorable review of Lasso Studio Lasso Studio for Dreamweaver 1.5 Seiter, Charles. "Lasso Studio for Dreamweaver 1.5". MacWorld. IDG. Retrieved 28 October 2013.

Fletc3her (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Complete

As per wikipedia guidelines surrounding cleanup, and thanks to User:Eric3K plus others, all sections of this article have been cleaned up. Suggest removal of this issue at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanstephens (talk • contribs) 04:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citing change to LAMP Architecture from MacOS

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lasso 8 as most popular (sic)

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)[reply]

coding samples versus open-source

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)[reply]

The (now broken) link references the central repository for Lasso's source files, not "code samples". The link is here: [1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think the description as partially open source is apt. The link [2] 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 [3] Fletc3her (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Most of the files have no license or copyright. Some do, such as 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry - I think you missed my suggestion. I'll

This page in a nutshell: If an edit seems like an improvement, go for it.

We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought—Why doesn't this page have correct spelling, proper grammar, or a better layout? Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc.

Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia not only lets you add and edit articles: it wants you to do it.

Do not feel upset if your bold edits get reverted. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can be. Also, when you see a conflict in a talk page, don't just be a "mute spectator"; be bold and add your opinion there; see the official policy on talking and editing for more! On some of the less prominent articles on Wikipedia that have a lower editing rate, your bold edit might not be responded to immediately. Think about it this way: if you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough.

Be careful

Shortcuts

Although the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that you take care of the common good and not edit disruptively or recklessly. Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted easily, usually painlessly, and it is important not to feel insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further. However, some significant changes can be long-lasting and harder to fix. If you're unsure of anything, just ask for advice.

Also, changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes; but there are nevertheless situations in which bold edits can safely be made, even to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page.

Being bold is never an excuse to violate the policy on material about living persons.

Shortcuts

Often it is easier to see that something is not right rather than to know exactly what would be right. We do not require anyone to be bold; after all, commenting that something is incorrect can be the first step to getting it fixed. It is true, though, that problems are more certain to be fixed, and will probably be fixed faster, if you are bold and do it yourself.

Non-article namespaces

Tarot card of a Knight of Swords. It illustrates a young knight, holding up a sword, charging forward on a horse. — Remember to be bold!

Although editors are encouraged to be bold in updating articles, more caution is sometimes required when editing pages in non-article namespaces. Such pages are identified by a namespace prefix. For example, this page, Wikipedia:Be bold, has the "Wikipedia:" prefix; if it were called simply Be bold (with no prefix) it would be an article.

Problems may arise for a variety of reasons in different contexts in non-article namespaces. These problems should be taken into account in deciding whether to be bold, and how bold to be.

Wikipedia namespace

Wikipedia does not "enshrine" old practices: bold changes to its policies and guidelines are sometimes the best way to adapt and improve the encyclopedia. In this case, "bold" refers to boldness of idea; such ideas are most commonly raised and discussed first to best formulate their implementation.

The admonition "be careful" is especially important in relation to policies and guidelines, where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won compromise—which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background. In these cases, it is also often better to discuss potential changes first. However, spelling and grammatical errors can and should be fixed as soon as they are noticed.

Discussing changes to other Wikipedia-space pages on the talk page is also a good idea. If nothing else, it will provide an explanation of the changes for later editors. Most such pages are collections of arguments placed in Wikipedia space for later reference, so the same arguments don't need to be made over and over again.

Template namespace

One must be especially careful when being bold with templates: updating them can have far-reaching consequences because one change can affect lots of pages at once. Moreover, some templates are part of a wide-ranging, uniform system of templates across Wikipedia, e.g. infoboxes and stubs. Remember, all source code is easily broken by untested changes (but always quite fixable).

Because of these concerns, many heavily used templates are indefinitely protected from editing. Before editing templates, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects. Templates often have associated sandbox and testcases pages; respectively these are a place for the proposed modified template, and a place where the proposal may be trialed in comparison with the existing version.

Category namespace

Creating new categories or reorganizing the category structure may come to affect many pages. Consider the guidelines on categorization and overcategorization, and if what you're doing might be considered controversial (especially if it concerns categories for living people), propose changes at Categories for discussion, also mentioning them on pages of appropriate WikiProjects.

File namespace

Be bold in adding information to the description of an existing image. However, new images should be uploaded with new names rather than overwriting old ones. Doing otherwise risks having the old image confused with the new one. Therefore, you must always be careful.

User namespace

It is generally recommended that you do not edit another Wikipedian's user page or comments left on talk pages (other than your own, and even then do not be reckless). Fixing vandalism is nearly always welcome, even on user pages. Specific users will let you know if they find your changes inappropriate or if you have given incorrect information.

Portal namespace

Regarding changes to graphical layout? See the next section. Note that the color scheme used for portals is not necessarily arbitrary. For example, most portals related to countries use the colors of the nation's flag. It is a good idea to propose design changes on the talk page first.

Graphical layout changes

Shortcuts

Making major changes to the graphical layout of certain pages that are not articles requires caution (examples below). It is often best to test changes first (in a sandbox page in your userspace, or a subpage of the page in question), and to discuss the proposed change with other editors before making it live. When many users edit pages for layout, different plans can conflict, and the page may get worse rather than better.

This is particularly true of highly visible pages, such as those linked from the navigation boxes on the left of the screen. These often use intricate formatting to convey their information, and a lot of work has gone into making them as user-friendly as possible. Moreover, some pages form groups whose formatting is intended to be uniform. You should establish consensus before making design edits to these types of pages. Examples include the Main Page (which in any case is permanently protected), the Community Portal, the Featured content group of pages, and the group consisting of Wikipedia:Contents and its subpages, as well as Portal:Current events. This does not apply to articles or normal portals.

FileMaker "cuts off" Lasso

From the article: "At around the same time, FileMaker moved functionality that was previously embedded in the web companion and CDML into FileMaker Server. No third party software could 'speak' directly to a FileMaker database, which severed the direct connection of Lasso with FileMaker."

I'm not sure if this is true, and I can find no reference for it. Can anyone comment?--Sean Stephens (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the article noting the release of FileMaker Server Advanced 7 which included FileMaker, Inc.'s new strategy of serving web data through XML, JDBC, and ODBC and to include a reference to Lasso Pro's certification as a product which works with MySQL. I think these references provide a clearer description of how FileMaker's changing web strategy affect middleware products like Lasso.

"FileMaker Server 7 Advanced Now Available". CMO. Retrieved 28 October 2013.

Cook, Brad. "Lasso Pro receives MySQL Network certification". MacWorld. IDG. Retrieved 28 October 2013.

Fletc3her (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lasso (programming language)

popular (sic)

GHITS are not reliable source

misuse of "often"

Notability

Advertisement

Cleanup Complete

Citing change to LAMP Architecture from MacOS

Lasso 8 as most popular (sic)

coding samples versus open-source

Be careful

Non-article namespaces

Wikipedia namespace

Template namespace

Category namespace

File namespace

User namespace

Portal namespace

Graphical layout changes

See also

FileMaker "cuts off" Lasso