|
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">— 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\<sup>[[User_talk:cvhyphus|talk]]</sup> 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 ==
| 