Talk:Interface (computing)

message: A list of programming languages in which the keyword "interface" has *some* meaning is kind of absurd. Wouter Lievens 13:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, if you understand what's going on here. See the above talk. There is a distinction between interfaces and interface compliance being treated as part of the language (eg Objective-C "@interface"), and "informal" interfaces such as in C which are not really recognized by the compiler or is a first-class part of the language. Dysprosia 13:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The List 

message: Many of interwiki links here are pointing to versions of Interface (object-oriented programming) (fr, ru), User interface (ca, he, hu, ja, ko, lv, no, pl, th, ur) or general (not only in comuter science) Interface (da, es, nl, pt).
Others are OK or I don't know about what they are.
There is a problem because in many cases there is no equivalent of Interface (computer science). Probably the best would be pointing to versions of Interface which is usually a disambiguation or merge it with Interface (object-oriented programming) as suggested above but I'm not sure whether this is good idea.
--MwGamera 19:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: I don't get this line: "Interfaces can translated from a human language to other, using a language editor, that creates a *.INI file for the language."
Anyone care to explain?
Supermagle 07:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation? 

message: This makes no sense in English - I have changed 'is provided' to 'provides' which I presume is what was intended; but 'a piece of software' seems ambiguous ('software program'/'driver software'/something else?) - it looks like someone has translated or copied from a text they don't understand - so I have added the 'citation needed'. Ray3055 (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A piece of 'software' is provided access to computer resources 

message: Shouldn't Interface (object-oriented programming) be merged into the Interfaces in object oriented languages Section of this article?  Tom94022 (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: of course. LMB (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Interface (object-oriented programming) has been appropriately renamed Protocol (object-oriented programming), and as such should not be merged into this article. Interfaces and protocols are related but quite different concepts: Protocols are one way to implement interfaces, but by no means the only way, and protocols also have some uses beyond implementing interface. See for example the interview of scientist Erich Gamma at , where he makes a clear distinction between interfaces as described on this page (referred to as "interfaces" in the interview) and protocols as described in the Protocol page (referred to as "Java interfaces" in the interview because Java uses the term "interface" as a keyword for its implementation of protocols and the the interview was meant for an audience of Java programmers). 173.226.146.65 (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Do not merge, the java definition of interface causes confusion here, however looking at the objective-c definition of a protocol clears things up.  In c and varients an interface is a set of exposed symbols usually declared in a .h file.  The compiler ensures that these sybols are available to the linker, so that other programs may link against, and therefore interface to the compiled object.  Conversly a protocol requires that an object conforming to it implements a set of known methods before the compilation will succeed. This is so that it may act as a delegate for the object calling it, without the calling object being required to know that the sybol in the called object exists, because the protocol guarantees it exists.Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: This article has been found to be edited by students of the Wikipedia:India Education Program project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the India Education Program talk page for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no copyrighted material remains in here. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look out for possible copyright violations in this article 

message: In "Software Interfaces", there is mention of objects communicating with each other through methods. Is it not "messages" in standard OOP terminology? Viridium (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology: Method vs Message 

message: , there's a problem with your removal of the extended hatnote - the rationale for both reverts just doesn't make sense; "user interface" is not merely a possibility equal to others. "Interface" is a term commonly used to refer to user interface, and is therefore ambiguous with, but not equal to, the concept covered in this article; thus requiring explicit disambiguation. Per WP:HNS, the hatnote should use the form that is clearer and easier for the reader. Per WP:1HAT, a direct link to the other article can be used "if the other article could be reasonably expected by a significant number of readers to be at the title in question", so the link to "user interface" makes sense even if it is also found at the (disambiguation) page. A user arriving to this article looking for user interface will not know that this concept is not covered here unless we explicitly say so.
On a very high level, "user interface" could be viewed as an instance of computer interface where one side of hardware is of the wetware variety, but that's not a common view. Given the potential for confusion between the "machine-machine" (covered here) and "human-machine" (not covered here) interfaces, the hatnote requires at least expansion to clarify what the article is not about. Diego (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but I don't believe nor have I seen any evidence that the term interface is more commonly preceded by the qualifier user than any of the other common qualifiers, e.g., graphical user, network, hardware, software, etc.  User interface is one of the several qualifiers listed on the disambiguation page so specifically listing it gives it undue prominence.  Note the article does mention user interface, so I suspect the solution is to add a small section linking to the main article.  Tom94022 (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not mention "user interface", the term is located at the See also section only. And you misunderstand the problem. I'm not arguing that "user interface" is more common that "network interface", "hardware interface"... I'm arguing that it's qualitatively different, so it requires disambiguation, while the others do not require it as they're instances of the concept described in this article - and "user interface" is not. Diego (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article now clearly covers "user interface" as one of several computer interfaces which makes the article now consistent with its title.  Tom94022 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity problem in the title 

message: (at least when they vibrate... and especially with the touch and LCD capabilities of more modern devices). Jus' sayin'... 86.8.54.48 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joysticks are not one way only... 

message: Very cold climate, nice a moment..... Maris.g (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gct Coimbatore 

message: Isn't there a better example then a touchscreen? Harwarewise the touchscreen consist of two seperate elements, a touch interface and a screen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.189 (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Touchscreen