Talk:Eiffel (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:04, 25 February 2023

Latest revision as of 15:53, 21 June 2025

(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject Computingbanner shell|class=Start|importance1=mid}}

{{WikiProject Computer science|class=StartComputing|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Computer science|importance=mid}}

}}

[[/Expanded draft]]

Line 6 ⟶ 8:

== Archives ==

[[/Archive 1]]

== No instructions, advice, or how-to ==

I removed Thumperward's "how-to" marker, as I do not see where it applies. Please provide a specific example or more detailed critizism. Thanks. --[[User:Schoelle|Schoelle]] ([[User talk:Schoelle|talk]]) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

==When appeared?==

Infobox says 1986; text says "Since 1985, many suppliers have developed Eiffel programming environments". Any better sources? [[Special:Contributions/192.12.12.178|192.12.12.178]] ([[User talk:192.12.12.178|talk]]) 02:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

:{{done|Added a reference}} in the info block to the web page mentioning the history of the language. [[User:Alexander (Sasha)|Alexander (Sasha)]] ([[User talk:Alexander (Sasha)|talk]]) 09:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

==Introductory sentences are promotional, not NPOV==

The introductory paragraph reads like marketing copy.. Since efficient development, reliability, and extensibility are generally considered virtues, and object-oriented programming is widely seen as a road to these qualities, all this introduction says is that Eiffel is designed to be a ''good'' object-oriented language. The way the first paragraph reads now, it seems to say, "Eiffel is designed to get object oriented languages ''right'', which is demonstrated by its use in academia and in all of these different applications, and you even have a wide choice of tools to use!" It is only in the second paragraph that the article gets around to discussing the specific principles that distinguish Eiffel from other languages.

The introduction should describe what makes Eiffel objectively different, and anything that is said about how good it is needs to be backed up by citations to published and peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate using Eiffel leads to measurably better results than using some other specific choices that could be made. Only then are such statements NPOV. What we have here instead sounds like bandwagon marketing tactics don't cut it (ironic, since according to Tiobe Software's Programming Community Index, Eiffel is not even in the top ''50'' programming languages).

: popularity is not a way to judge the good quality of a language. Many OO languages are very bad designed. Eiffel, was designed with a more formally rigorous approach, I don't care if the majority of programmers ignore what a precondition is, preferring languages more easy to learn for the laymen, those with no types, and a lot of traps to fall.

: Eiffel has a good design because it gives no rope to programmer for hanging himself. And has features which were added just recently to those more popular OO languages, which I wont mention to avoid a religious discussion with their fans.

: I hate OO languages because they distorted many concepts. For example, encapsulation, in many OO languages the objects are parametrized changing internal constants. That violate the information hiding principle.

: Nevertheless, I am interested to learn about Eiffel, because contrary to many of the other OO counterparts, seems a well designed language, Because it is designed for good software engineering practices, like design by contract. It is not in the top list of popularity, but had positively influenced both other programming languages and the programming practice.

: It may sound publicity to you, but it is not. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2806:106E:B:EB8A:5812:FFA3:1BF4:BDDD|2806:106E:B:EB8A:5812:FFA3:1BF4:BDDD]] ([[User talk:2806:106E:B:EB8A:5812:FFA3:1BF4:BDDD#top|talk]]) 03:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Unless there are objections which need to be worked through, I will soon rewrite the first sentence to "Eiffel is an ISO-standardized, general-purpose object-oriented programming language," move the rest of the paragraph to the end of the section into a paragraph just above the contents, and continue the first paragraph with the second paragraph. --—C. V. Hyphus\^{[[User_talk:cvhyphus|talk]]} 04:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

:{{done|Lead reworked}} --[[User:Cybercobra|<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b><span style="color:#FFB521;">cobra</span>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 05:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

== Missing File Extension ==

Can someone who knows Eiffel add the file extension used by its components. Thanks. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/189.209.111.39|189.209.111.39]] ([[User talk:189.209.111.39|talk]]) 22:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{done|Added the file extension}} to the language template block. [[User:Alexander (Sasha)|Alexander (Sasha)]] ([[User talk:Alexander (Sasha)|talk]]) 08:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Line 47 ⟶ 21:

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 10:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

== Renaming mechanism flaw ==

Dear editors:

In 2022, it was discovered that the Eiffel's renaming mechanism has

serious semantic flaws, please refer to the following repo and pdf doc

for the report, and code example to demonstrate the semantic issue:

https://github.com/joortcom/eiffel_rename

https://github.com/joortcom/eiffel_rename/blob/main/eiffel_rename.pdf

Please verify the new findings as reported there, and update the

wikipedia page of the Eiffel language.

BTW, you can also check the following repo for a new design pattern

that solved the diamond problem of multiple inheritance cleanly and

generally, based on the above findings:

https://github.com/joortcom/DDIFI

Happy editing!

Regards. [[User:Joeyz44|Joeyz44]] ([[User talk:Joeyz44|talk]]) 15:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)