Talk:Code::Blocks

message: Can't understand why section "Features" is tagged "advertisement": it seems to me very neutral and objective. Hence I'm removing the tag. Since looking at the history it seems to me a "revert war" is already in act, please post the reason why you think it looks like advertisement. SalvoIsaja 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SOAPBOX (which you should have read had you actually examined the template) and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Copying and pasting a list of features without discussing why they are useful or notable is equivalent to turning this article into a promotional pamphlet. Note that articles on IDEs that are unquestionably notable, such as Visual Studio, don't rely on a laundry list of features to get the point across. Code::Blocks claims to have these features; can you verify their robustness with third-party sources? If you can, by all means please add them. If not, what makes the claim neutral? It is an unverified claim made by the first party. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we are talking about an IDE, and I'm a regular user of IDEs, it seems to me quite pointless to discuss what features are and why there are useful. Either the IDE provides them or not. This is what makes it neutral. The feature list of this article provides to me exactly what I'm looking for: what this IDE can do for me, shortly, to the point. I think any discussion instead of the plain list would be the real bloat. I still don't understand what's the problem. Please advise. SalvoIsaja (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  I've just seen you (Ham Pastrami) are also the one who marked this article for lack of notability, without commenting it in the log, even marking your editing as minor. I guess you have some personal bias against this IDE. May I ask you why do you think this article lacks information on the notability of the subject? SalvoIsaja (talk) 10:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Can't understand

message: Added missing link to Microsoft Visual C++ in Compiler related Features.--71.229.35.119 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linked MSVC 

message: This is really quite misleading and only seems to be an attempt to "legitimize" Code::Blocks by mentioning a corporation. It would be far better to have "Code::Blocks uses a custom build system, which stores its information in XML-based project files, but can optionally use external makefiles." Anyone who is familiar with makefiles can easily determine if it indeed works with Trolltech's qmake (which it does, but it turns out to be a non-trivial matter - Refer to Using CB to develop Qt application). Lloydsargent (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Ease of Use with QMake 

message: I've removed the unreferenced sources and notability tags. As far as I can remember, the first tag was introduced when there was no reference to the Jennic Inc related paragraph, that has been added. About the second tag, I still can't understand why it is present, and no motivations have been given as far as I can see (see above in this discussion page). IMHO this is a good article for a good IDE. SalvoIsaja (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced sources and notability 

message: I can't really understand the meaning of this term. wxWidgets is a C++ library, not a graphical design tool. wxSmith on the other hand is not derived of wxWidgets, it's a tool that helps designing the graphical user interfaces that are actually generated using C++ and wxWidgets. In my opinion, this term is clearly misleading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.121.134 (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  wxSmith a "derivative version of wxWidgets" 

message: The currently used logo is a jpeg; perhaps someone should consider switching it to a much cleaner png image such as splash.png from Code::Block's subversion repository. 76.252.71.83 (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page logo