Talk:Comparison of C Sharp and Java: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:23, 29 October 2011

Revision as of 11:43, 14 November 2011

Line 165:

::(not sure what/who the above comment is aimed at but here goes) No, it is not obvious that a language with more features is "superior" (as you out it). The objective of this article is not to pass judgement on which is superior. You are setting up a straw-man argument. A wikipedia article is about verifiable facts. This article should only under exceptional circumstances label anything as a "deficiency" - and should only do so if there are ample authoritative sources for such a claim. Whether a language supports a specific (or equivalent) feature, or even how it supports a given programming discipline (functional programming, dynamic programs, object oriented programs, numeric or financial applications etc) can be demonstrated by careful examples. However, turning the article into a survey or synthesis of how the languages are actually used would violate WP:NOR. That said, I'm all for creating a more ''discipline'' oriented article (as opposed to a feature-oriented article). It is, however, very difficult to do so without introducing original research. [[User:Useerup|Useerup]] ([[User talk:Useerup|talk]]) 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

::: I'm concerned that this article contains really a lot of original research, which is maybe inevitable considering the amount of content in it. But I think it has much too many content for its subject. Sticking to valid sources would reduce its content, but improve its quality (and be in line with Wikipedia rules BTW). For now even for programmers its very difficult to read. BTW there is a tendency in this article to explain concepts, but I would prefer to have the explanation in the specific articles about these concepts (example Delegates) rather than in this already overly long comparison article. [[User:Hervegirod|Hervegirod]] ([[User talk:Hervegirod|talk]]) 21:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

:: I agree with [[User:WilliamSommerwerck|WilliamSommerwerck]]. A "feature rich" language tends to be more efficient in some aspects, but it is harder to understand and to maintain. Languages are used to write applications. In more features more treacherous details may hide. For example, comparing signed and unsigned integers may create a serious problem in C/C++. Not having unsigned integers means significant simplification of "rules of the game". In my opinion this is no defficiency, this is GOOD. The article marks not having unsigned integers as Java defficiency, this is ignorance. However, from the point of view C programmer the differences between C# and Java are too small to say which language is "better". Maybe Python ;) --[[Special:Contributions/193.165.212.242|193.165.212.242]] ([[User talk:193.165.212.242|talk]]) 11:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC) ([[:cs:User:Pteryx]])

== Suggest correction to "High-Precision Floating Point" row on the feature table ==