Content deleted Content added
m →Proposal for Deletion: wording |
|||
Line 437:
To make my point more clear, we need to start from "The developers of Java based it on the C++ programming language, but removed many of the language features that are rarely used or often used poorly."[http://www.webbasedprogramming.com/Java-Unleashed/ch03.htm] (I can't remember where I first came across that on Sun's old website). What C# seems to have done (although Microsoft won't admit it) is start by directly copying the Java language and concept, then, release by release, adding back in various C++, VB and other random concepts, whether they are or could be used poorly or not. This article repeats, "C# has this; does Java have this? No? Fail." It does this without considering ''why'' the feature was left out of Java, what the pros and cons of providing developers with the feature are, or any other relevant issue. Take the first point in the comparison table: "Single-root (unified) type system? Java No; C# Yes". This could be worded, "Explicit language expression of when expensive boxing and unboxing routines have been invoked? Java Yes; C# No". This is what I meant above by '"mine is bigger than yours" bragging by fans', without the depth of coverage that would make the comparison useful to readers. For possible reader types, consider the project manager needing to decide which language to hire developers and develop a solution in, or the school-leaver deciding which language to study in depth to further their programming career. This article is too shallow and too detailed to help either of these. Who is it aimed at? Surely not just the egos of the Wikipedia authors who wrote it?! --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 17:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep. If the threshold for inclusion in the article is the ability to cite reliable publications that explicitly ''compare'' C# and Java, then indeed the entire comparison category (e.g. file systems etc) would have go to away. No, the threshold to meet is that any claims must be verifiable. The language specifications are reliable sources as far as the syntax and semantics goes. Other sources must be used for e.g. history, philosophy. I also do not agree that this is "bragging". Does the article have issues? sure. We should fix them instead of deleting the article. This article is not stale; it still receives edits and it is read by visitors. Clearly keep. But let's fix the problems. Who is it aimed at? As is evident from the discussions above, there is obviously a lot of readers with experience from one language but without understanding of what/how the other is different. As the two languages are overlapping and competing in the marketspace it is and will continue to be a controversial topic; but also an interesting topic. [[User:Useerup|Useerup]] ([[User talk:Useerup|talk]]) 14:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
| |||