Talk:C Sharp (programming language)/Archive 3

message: If this article is truly about the C# language, then I do not believe Compiler as a Service should have to be mentioned under C# 5.0. This is completely implementation-specific; for example, Novell's Mono has had CaaS for a long time. --Zor (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compiler as a Service 

message: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm has been updated so the standards note about C#4 not being standard should be updated  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.29.236 (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECMA standard update 

message: At the beginning, it is stated that C# is multi-paradigmed including ... declarative ... .  Could someone expand on this a bit?  The only declarative language I've used is MetaFont.  Having used C# a good deal, I must say that what I know of declarative programming (from MetaFont) doesn't exist in C#.  I'm happy to say that I don't understand declarative programming, but if I have any idea of what it is, C# does not support it, or I don't understand in what ways C# supports declarative paradigms.
--Limited Atonement (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The LINQ syntax is primarily what people mean by "declarative", in the same sense that SQL is a declarative language. Attributes are also kinda-sorta declarative if you stretch the definition a bit. :) Maghnus (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  C# as a Declarative Language 

message: Is there an error in this text?
class Program
Above is a class definition. Everything between the following pair of braces describes Program.
static void Main()
This declares the class member method where the program begins execution. The .NET runtime calls the Main method. (Note: Main may also be called from elsewhere, like any other method, e.g. from another method of ExampleClass.) The static keyword makes the method accessible without an instance of ExampleClass.
Should it really say ExampleClass here, or maybe Program class?  The only place I see ExampleClass is up in the Generics section. Sorry if this is a dumb question, I am just learning C# - BollyJeff || talk 19:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks! --Cybercobra (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  question on Hello World example 

message: I believe Unity 3D should be taken off the list of "implementations". It's not an implementation, but merely uses C# as a scripting language (if my memory serves me right, through Mono's tooling). --87.55.108.124 (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering there have been no objections, I will make this change... --Zor (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see why it had to be removed. Unity is a relatively popular and well-known tool. And even a scripting language can be considered an "implemenation" no? They have their own libraries and what not. And I don't know what is meant my "Mono's tooling", they do include Mono develop for help with programming, but you can just as easily use Visual Studio, or, like with Javascript, you can just open up a plaintext editor and program. 128.238.242.212 (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An implementation consists of such things as a compiler and a virtual machine. Unity 3d does not provide its own, it uses the ones provided by Mono. -- 98.108.202.17 (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unity 3D 

message: From the section on the hello world example:
:In this case, when the compiler sees use of the Console type later in the source code, it tries to find a type named Console, first in the current assembly, followed by all referenced assemblies
I'm pretty sure "assembly" in this sentence is wrong, and should be replaced by "namespace".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.65.169 (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  assembly vs namespace 

message: The module system including the using keyword should not be explained in the example section, but rather in its own section. --91.202.129.192 (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Module system

message: I disagree with this change moving the syntax section to the top. In a general purpose encyclopaedia the details of the syntax are nowhere near the most important information. Do other editors have an opinion on this? Mitch Ames (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Syntax is highly tecnical, and per WP:UPFRONT should be after more general sections like history and design goals. I've moved it downwards. Diego (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that.  I am new to Wikipedia, and I figured that the article was mainly about what the language is, and not about the context, usage, and development of the language.  Obviously, I am not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines enough. Randomizer3 (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In a wiki about programming, you'd be right. But always have in mind that Wikipedia is for all audiences; someone who is not a programmer (a journalist, a manager) might want to learn what C# is for (as opposed to how it's used), and general sections about context are more informative for most people. Diego (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of the Syntax section 

message: Per Neutral Point of View, should the page really state that it influenced Java, as the source even states that, "In my opinion, it is C# that has caused these radical changes to the Java language."
This could be disputed because Java influenced C#, and the source even states that it is one person's opinion. -TheLunarFrog (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They are contemporary and quite similar languages targeting the same audience. I don't think anyone would dispute there's is some mutual influencing going on here (e.g. Project Lambda). Adding an additional reference e.g. discussing more recent versions of the two languages (Java 7/8, C# 4/5) couldn't hurt, though. —Ruud 00:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influenced by Java? 

message: The source in footnote (reference) 17 quotes a source that quotes a source.
A better reference for the original source is:
Wylie Wong (2002). "Why Microsoft's C# isn't"
CNET News, January 17,2002
available online at: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1082-817522.html 
I'm not a wikipedia editor.  Can soneone please fix this.
Also a more extended and informative quote would include the second part of Gosling's comments:
"They had this problem in their design rules that they had to support C and C++, which means you have to have a memory model where you can access everything at all times. It's the existence of those loopholes that is the source of security, reliability and productivity problems for developers. So on the one hand, they copied Java, and on the other hand, they added gratuitous things and other things that are outright stupid. That's amusing.” 
68.80.26.175 (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  better reference for Gosling quotes in C# article 

message: # notation. since when has it been called C hash? the sharp symbol is used at the start of the article, but gets switched to the octothorpe. 50.125.167.6 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sharp Sign Notation

message: Why does "Sharp" have an upper case "S" - should it be lowercase, per MOS:CAPS? Presumable "Sharp" is not actually part of the official name ("C#"), so there's no need to capitalise it.
If it should be capitalised in the article title because it's a proper noun, then it probably ought to be capitalised everywhere throughout the article, in particular C_Sharp_(programming_language)#Name currently has a lower case "S" in 
175.45.116.66 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "C Sharp" or "C sharp" 

message: Does this edit refer to this Space Engineers? If so, it should be linked (and italicised). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Engineers 

message: The article lists a date of "July 2015" for the C# 6 specification, but fails to give any reference. In fact, this Stack Overflow answer seems to suggest that no actual specification exists yet, even from Microsoft. --Wormbo 07:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. VS2015 install only came with a C# 5 spec. I have marked it as "none" until one can be sourced. Rawling4851 08:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 6 language specification 

message: The literature at the end of the article is nearly ancient... --TobiasVetter (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on C Sharp (programming language). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060214002638/http://msdn.microsoft.com:80/vcsharp/previous/2002/FAQ/default.aspx to http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/previous/2002/FAQ/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090218222543/http://research.microsoft.com:80/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/fsharp/faq.aspx to http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/fsharp/faq.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sunmist3 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I thought it was very interesting when I read in My History of Visual Studio (Part 1) – Rico Mariani's Performance Tidbits that Microsoft temporarily began to develop a C# language (based on the C language) before developing a C++ compiler. I added a mention of that in this article, I hope it remains, at least somewhat. Sam Tomato (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The hatnote of this page says the correct title is C# (programming language), which I think is inaccurate. According to a further section, the correct title would be C♯ (programming language), which is currently a redirect. If we move this to C♯ (programming language), not only is it correct, but there are also no technical limitations. — Supuhstar * — 19:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: NO. ECMA 334 standard, page 9, states: "The name C# is written as the LATIN CAPITAL LETTER C (U+0043) followed by the NUMBER SIGN # (U+0023)." Kiwipidae (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Notice that the NUMBER SIGN # is an "unsafe character" according to the RFC1738; namely, it is used for Anchor link. This is why # cannot be used as part of the title. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

text: I would be firmly against a rename to "C♯". U+266F is definitively not part of the official name of the language, and it is absolutely not Wikipedia's place to promote the idea that it is. —  Warren. ‘ talk , 20:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a requested move proposal below. I encourage all interested parties, even those such as yourself who are against my proposal, to participate. It is in the bottom part of this talk page. I would note that all the pages would KEEP the notice at the top stating that the official name of the language is "C#" and that "C♯" is used as the title instead for technical reasons. And the articles would consistently use "C#", not "C♯", in them. So I absolutely would NOT be promoting the idea that that is the official name of the language, just to clarify. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding about this, I welcome you and anyone else who wants to participate in the requested move discussion to do so. Yetisyny (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The correct title 

message: * Oppose because "♯" is, by definition, strictly a musical symbol, whereas the name of the language, based on the official language documentation, expressly says it is "#".  The octothorpe and "musical sharp" symbols look similar, but they are not synonymous. Wikipedia is expressly WP:NOT in the business of promoting things that aren't true, even if it's tempting to do so to work around a technical limitation with URLs. The current pattern of using the word "sharp" for technical reasons works just fine because that's how you say the subject. —  Warren. ‘ talk , 22:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about the 12 moves replacing the word Sharp with the ♯ sign:

message: Mads Torgersen is a broken lemma  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.140.11.34 (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mads Torgersen  

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect .csc. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ".csc" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion