This Wikipedia article was written today. There's links to a few publications, but no compiler, no homepage.
I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia's deletionists, but I hope they go after this page. Musing about something in a few research papers doesn't make it notable.
> I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia's deletionists, but I hope they go after this page.
How is that for a contradiction... Google launched their 'Go' language today, and it definitely is great that someone took the trouble to put this stake in the ground. Whether it is notable or not is debatable, I think the simple fact that there is a namespace collision between two programming languages is reason enough to make it notable.
It is all over the web, thanks to the efforts of the author, if it wasn't 'notable' yesterday it certainly is now.
I have to agree. Google should have known better before naming a new language "go" in 2009.
It is hard to believe, they didn't think by now someone else would have come up with that name for a language.
Or did assume they would just throw a bunch money and lawyers at whoever comes out claiming the name.
Something similar happened to http://www.wxwidgets.org (ex-wxWindows). Microsoft payed the author some money and he changed the name of the project. I don't think that would be such a bad outcome.
I'm not sure there's any reason for lawyers and money to be involved. A trademark in the U.S. protect marks used in commerce, so I would think that the authors of Go! would have to have used the name in a commercial venture prior to Google's announcement.
It appears that Google is not asserting trademark protection on the name, either, so there really doesn't seem to be any legal case at all - it looks like both parties can use it.
From uspto.gov:
A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods.
Indeed, and I would dismiss this out of hand, but someone fairly recently made a similar argument along the lines of "hey, our previously-obscure programming language existed in some form before the popular language was announced, so we have as much of a right to the name."
I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia's deletionists, but I hope they go after this page. Musing about something in a few research papers doesn't make it notable.