Content deleted Content added
Line 119:
::Then change the column value for Android support on Java. I don't oppose doing so whatsoever, I just am not aware of Java support on Android. You seem to assume that I am pro-Java and am attempting to attack C#, but I actually prefer to use C# over Java, so your argument is unfounded. If the word "but" bothers you then "using" may be used, thus it may read: "Yes, using third-party software". You seem to be offended at the fact that these languages require third-party software to run on other platforms and are attempting to hide this fact, but this information is useful to the reader and is very relevant to the topic of platform support. [[User:Kupraios|Kupraios]] ([[User talk:Kupraios|talk]]) 17:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
:::[[WP:AGF]]. I reverted your edit and in the very summary I pointed out how it would be unbalanced to not use the same standard for Java. ''You'' were actually the one accusing me of favoritism towards C#, so let's not go there. And yes, I do have a problem with "but" because it is a value judgement. Some may even believe that it is a "good thing" that it's 3rd party support. Rather than saying "3rd party" why not just point out ''how'' in a ref? For the record, I do believe that the entire section is problematic because you can always find some way to use a programming language for a given platform through cross compilation. It is meaningless when comparing ''languages''. It was put there by someone who mistook language for platform. I would prefer we just delete the section. [[User:Useerup|Useerup]] ([[User talk:Useerup|talk]]) 18:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
:::I tried to work in the specific references. Is that better? I have reservations about the in-the-box link. I'm not convinced that you can actually run Java on a non-jailbroken iOS device. in-the-box does not seem to be a cross compiler, but rather a VM. Apple does *not* allow VMs on iOS devices. Also, there's a blog post ref in there. [[User:Useerup|Useerup]] ([[User talk:Useerup|talk]]) 18:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
::::I'd argue to keep it in because although it is true that the programming language itself is separate to the platform with which it runs on, this information conforms to what people would expect to find in this article. We have to find a balance between political correctness and usefulness. People reading the article will infer that it is the native platform referred to, otherwise they most likely don't understand the rest of the article.
::::The changes you've made are better in that it is clearer that there is no native support on those platforms, but I wouldn't put specifics (referring to Mono) the way you have. I would just refer to it as third-party and have a reference to Mono because otherwise it could suggest favouritism towards using Mono and not some other software that could exist (if it does). It suggests that Mono is an officially used platform for running C# rather than a community project. It's best to just be generic and have the reference be specific, hence: "Yes, using third-party software<ref>Mono</ref>". That way more references can be added in the future without disrupting the visual appeal of the table, and also it contains more information in a smaller space.
| |||