This article looks like trolling.

I don’t know if there is something like “relativistic programming” the only source for the article is not using the word relativistic programming and there is no reference to the theory of relativity.

The use of “over 9000” sounds like trolling and while it is true that the graph in the source shows a value over 8000 extrapolating it to over 9000 is extremely subjective. --Albert Dice (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, I'm pretty sure the article is not trolling. "Relativistic Programming" is a real name used by real academics. The Wikipedia article is pretty clearly based on the overview page of the RP Wiki that it links to in External Links. That wiki is called "Relativistic Programming", and describes the term in reference to special relativity. It also has an "over 6000" brag that someone copied to Wikipedia which was later updated to new data in 2014, and I think it's just a coincidence that it matches an ancient meme.
All that being said, I'm not sure the page has much reason to exist. It's been flagged for notability since 2011, and it's hardly become more notable since. The term never gained much use outside its small group at PSU. Their wiki hasn't been updated since 2012, and I don't think any of them have published anything using the term in almost as long. Also, it's just not a useful term. By 2019, it's pretty clear that, while there are a wide variety of different orthogonal techniques that generalize all the way from cache coherency to interplanetary links, trying to cram them all into a single model based on an abstraction of RCU obscures more than it clarifies (and the link to special relativity doesn't really add anything). -- (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a real technique for dealing with concurrency issues but it has absolutely nothing to do with relativity in the physics sense the references to that in this article make no sense. Causality violations would make partial order imposition impossible as behavior wouldn't converge.

I'm not sure that this rises to the level of a programming style, it's just a restating of this:

There's a reasonable argument to be made that the sole citation that makes sense here should just be added to the non-blocking page as a citation and this page should probably be merged into that one and deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]