More broadly, though, regarding using that article as a source here, it may be worth reconsidering whether the cited article actually says what's being attributed to it. The author deliberately chooses not to analyse or explain the results. If we use those graphs to assert that one language is faster than another in some case, we're choosing to interpret the results ourselves. [[User:BMKane|BMKane]] ([[User talk:BMKane|talk]]) 20:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
: I add this article as a source :myself, and I'm against removing parts of it just because editors here (''editors'' include me as well) feel that the article is to broad or insufficiently explain the context of anysome performance comparison. The article does not write that java is faster than C++, it just makespresent benchmarks about specific low level operations, and find some which are much faster in C++, some which are faster in Java. It's true that the benchmark about Collections was about various kinds of maps, however I don't understand why you want to remove the reference as well, rather than just change it to Maps. And removing a valid source (I don't think anyone would imply that Dr Dobbs source should be deemed not valid by default) seems really odd to me. Why not just stick to rewording what you thought should be reworded, rather than removing everything? The article talked about single Hashmapsand multiple Hashmaps, so even if I agree that naming it as Collection is too broad, maps is really the term that should be used here. [[User:Hervegirod|Hervegirod]] ([[User talk:Hervegirod|talk]]) 16:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
