|
}}
__TOC__
== Platform Support ==
The table regarding platform support states "Yes" in the C# column for Linux, Mac OS X, and Android. We all know that Microsoft who created and continue to create the C# language have not officially made the .NET runtime work on any of those, but rather it is an open source project named "Mono". At present there is merely a reference to the Mono project page, but I propose actually specifying that it is a third-party implementation, thus not one offered by Microsoft. Hence, I propose that for those platforms it should state: "Yes, but third-party". I already made this change already, but it was reverted because it supposedly doesn't make sense since Java support is third-party. This is absurd. The Java referred to in the article and in Wikipedia in general is that distributed by Oracle, and for C# it is that which is distributed by Microsoft.
Can you please leave your favouritism towards C# alone and please just provide useful information for readers. I am sure it is in the interests of the readers to know that C# does not run on those operating systems without additional third-pary software. [[User:Kupraios|Kupraios]] ([[User talk:Kupraios|talk]]) 04:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
:Is Java on Android supplied/supported by Oracle? No! Oracle actually ''sued'' over that. I am sure it is in the interests of the readers to know that Java does not run on that operating system without additional (and controversial) third-party (Google Dalvik) software. See how that argument can be used against Java as well?. I ask just that you use the same standard and don't use loaded phrases ("but" is a loaded word implying a reservation - ''your'' personal reservation, not a reservation that should be put forward in the voice of WP). Please also keep in mind that these are the ''programming languages'' and '''not''' the ''platforms'' (Java and .NET). The "platform support" section is already a stretch in that regard, but if it has to mean anything in an article about the ''programming languages'' it must be that you can use the language to code for the platform. That's why Android has a "yes". Just use the same standard for C#. If you believe that the way through which a platform is supported is important then put it in a note - like <nowiki>{{yes}}<ref>through Mono</ref> and {{yes}}<ref>through Dalvik</ref></nowiki> - or something to that effect (with links). That way WP does not make judgement calls but allows the reader to come to his/her own conclusions. [[User:Useerup|Useerup]] ([[User talk:Useerup|talk]]) 11:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
::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) In-the-box seems to be dead, is undocumented, there is no evidence that it can be used to create App Store compliant apps, and in any case it would not allow you to code to the iOS SDK, severely limiting its usefulness.
::::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 being referred to, otherwise they most likely don't understand the rest of the article. Also, what about running virtual machines on an OS? Should we take those into consideration too? I think not, it's best we just assume native support as a default. Otherwise the articles regarding software made to run on a specific OS could be argued as being able to run on all OSs even though that isn't exactly true.
::::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<nowiki><ref>Mono</ref></nowiki>". 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. [[User:Kupraios|Kupraios]] ([[User talk:Kupraios|talk]]) 21:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
::::As for Android, it is called Java but it is really not Java as defined in this article. A lot of Java base library is different on Android, or works differently, and Android has stalled to part of Java 6, meaning that all Java 7 evolutions of the language are not supported. [[User:Hervegirod|Hervegirod]] ([[User talk:Hervegirod|talk]]) 09:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
== Speed/performance comparison ==
|
