I'm not sure I understand why even a truly obscure programming language article should ever be deleted; it's not like Wikipedia is running low on paper. If Odin ceased all development tomorrow it would be good to have some record of what it was.

For the record, I like Odin.

(On homebrew it appears to have been downloaded 6,707 in the past year. Compare to:)

zig: 71,565

rust: 304,405

golang: 1,246,300

malbogle: 9

▲

fwipsy 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The point of Wikipedia is to be accurate, not complete. Wikipedia does not want to just trust the developers of $ObscureLang to maintain their own wikipedia page. So, the existence of the $ObscureLang page (and, in the aggregate, many similar pages) imposes a maintenance burden on Wikipedia. Better to say nothing than to risk saying something inaccurate.

▲

greyface- 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> The point of Wikipedia is to be accurate, not complete

The point of Wikipedia is to be verifiable, not accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_t...

	▲	fwipsy 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy." Verifiable, in addition to accurate. Not "not accurate."

▲

miguel_martin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

fwiw, I think a lot of people just clone odin and build it via `./build_odin.sh release` on MacOS (at least, I do). The compiler builds in ~20s