Talk:Pure (programming language) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pure_(programming_language)

Please do not delete this information on an important programming language which is widely used. One may certainly imporve the article, however, letting it disappear in nirvana is not fair. I'm going to try ASAP. BTW I'm neither affiliated nor otherwise involved in this matter (just a user).

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: No consensus, 18 July 2024, see discussion. Keep, 27 February 2011, see discussion. Keep, 12 February 2011 (UTC), see discussion.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

• The LLVM 3.0 release notes will reference Pure if anyone wants to add it as citation somewhere http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html snaphat (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the examples section, the code given as the "sieve of Eratosthenes" does not appear to be a true sieve of Eratosthenes. It looks more like a Turner's sieve -- a simpler but computationally far less efficient algorithm. 174.27.229.215 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to complete the merge I proposed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure (programming language) (3rd nomination). Tagging AfD participants: User:HyperAccelerated, User:IntGrah, User:JPxG, User:Adam_Sampson. Not going to do a formal WP:MERGEPROP because I can never remember all the steps. Suriname0 (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Suriname0 Oppose I think Prolog would be a better example to cite rather than Pure in the article on rewriting. Perhaps there are yet better examples. IntGrah (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Suriname0 Your proposal sounds good to me. But I'd agree with IntGrah that Prolog is a much better-known example, so I'd add it as another example rather than replacing existing ones. Adam Sampson (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. I'm fine with this. I'll redirect this page to rewriting and add a sentence about the Pure programming language. You are free to make amendments to what is said about the language in that article, but it appears that there's several opinions that all agree that this should no longer exist as a standalone article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]