Talk:C Sharp (programming language)/Archive 2

message: richard stallman's rant about C# where he apparently confused the C# programming language with the .NET environment has been mentioned in the criticism section.  I think that's fairly legitimate, and I agree that it isn't wikipedia's place to pass judgment or to assert OR on the subject, but in the context of wikipedia's mention of his claim, the fact that he didn't provide any research, supporting information, references of his own, explanation, etc.. is definitely pertinent here, especially given that he's simply wrong according to a wealth of well referenced material in wikipedia. I mean, the fact that his claims are A) not presented with supporting evidence, and B) in conflict with facts stated elsewhere in wikipedia, is relevant, and not a matter of POV or OR.
also, is richard stallman even qualified to comment? he wrote a lot of C code that's used in GNU-based systems, and he played a major political role in defining the free software movement, but is that relevant expertise in C#? I mean, why is his incorrect and baseless rant any more encyclopedic than the opinion of any other relatively famous programmer whose body of work pre-dates the existence of the C# language? -无名氏- 18:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Stallman has earned the right to comment on the interactions between various kinds of licensed and/or patented software - he's been on the forefront of the public discussion for almost 25 years now.  He's also entitled to be wrong and to be seen in public to be so.  You're correct that this is merely an opinion, albeit one from a major figure in the world of software rights and ownership.  The article should treat it in that fashion, not as an assumed truth. But it also shouldn't attempt to prove him wrong - articles aren't supposed to debate themselves or their sources. RossPatterson (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  as you said, it's not assumed truth in this context, and the article therefore wouldn't be debating itself to frame his comments with references to conflicting accepted facts in wikipedia. also, this isn't a matter of opinion, it's not as if he said that C# is too connected to Microsoft for his liking, and he feels it's worth avoiding. he made specific factual claims that explicitly conflict with referenced material in wikipedia, no better than if he had said "you have to pay license fees to microsoft if you program in c#." mentioning the applicable facts in this context, in addition to their main encyclopedic locations, is not POV or OR, any more than mentioning the referenced facts in their appropriate informative context was POV in the first place. -无名氏- 20:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stallman essentially did say that C# is too connected to Microsoft for his liking and should be avoided : "The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. ... This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens."  He's stating his own speculative opinion on the future actions of another.  He doesn't make any factual claims, he merely states his own belief that Microsoft will do something bad some day.  As the founder of the Free Software Foundation and the League for Programming Freedom and one of the early and frequent commentators on, and critics of, software patents, his opinion has encyclopedic value.  But it shouldn't be presented as anything more than the opinion of someone who has a little more basis for an opinion than most of the rest of us.  RossPatterson (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your point. more so on the subject of the importance of his opinion than the idea that accompanying it with related facts would be inherently POV, but I agree that he is entitled to his opinion, it is relevant, and that it isn't being misrepresented as a claim of fact in this context. -无名氏- 00:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Relevant to this discussion: Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns 124.214.131.55 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Stallman's patent claims 

message: Architectural history needs dates.  When did C sharp hit the market?  Mathiastck 01:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs more than dates, but much more content.  The history of C# itself is deeply entwined with the Sun v. Microsoft Java lawsuit (1997 October to 2001 January), so much so that it can probably be said that had it not been for that lawsuit, C# would not exist, or at least not under the name known today.  It is quite remarkable, if not amazing, that none of this is mentioned, even in passing, at this article.  mdf 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this will interest you? http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma%20PATENT/ECMA-334%20&%20335/2001ga-123%20&%202002ga-003.pdf --DotnetCarpenter (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architecture history 

message: C# 3.5 - released November 2007?? There is no such thing as version 3.5! There is a version 3.5 .NET framework version, but that's another story. I'm updating the version part to the truth. --DotnetCarpenter (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version history is WRONG 

message: I Noticed A Pronounceing Error. (pronounced "C Sharp") Is Now Changed To (pronounced "See Sharp"). That Is A Highly Illogical Saying Of The Phrase And Should Have Been Corrected Ages Ago.
--Lyoko2198 (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Little Ironic? 

message: Since all the detailed examples were moved out of this article by User:Jwoodger last summer, it seems that in what we have left, the sections 'Code comments' and 'XML documentation system' now take up about a quarter of the remaining article. Having both of these sections in what is now a much shorter article adds a preponderance of comment examples to it. Could we conceive of a C# code comments article with all this material moved over? Would it be better just to trim the material right down, but leave it here, in a form more suitable to a top-level overview article like this? It seems seriously out of place in a WP:HOWTO kind of way as it is. 
:I agree with the point about comments.  I found it odd that there are 4 examples of document comments, 3 of which are not in the most commonly encountered style!  I also found the comments section to be confusing, this sentence "Multi-line documentation comments, while defined in the version 1.0 language specification, were not supported until the .NET 1.1 release" is then immediately preceded by 3 examples of multi line comments!  It gives the impression that multi line comments are no longer supported (after 1.0), when infact they are (althought I do not know the exact versions in which they are now supported).  I believe this needs clarification. --Matt 10:17 14 July 2010
The 'Boxing and unboxing' section also seems curiously detailed and now out of place here. Does anyone know what version of C# that was introduced in, so it can be moved to the relevant version-specific article: C Sharp 2.0, C Sharp 3.0 or C Sharp 4.0 along with all the other specific examples.
:Boxing and unboxing has been in since 1.0. --Matt 10:17 14 July 2010
Maybe all the Comment stuff should be used as the basis to create C Sharp 1.0, assuming comments and XML doc comments existed from the start?
--Nigelj (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  C# comments sections 

message: Can C#, I'm not talking about Microsoft Visual C#, use the system namespace with the Console.ReadLine/WriteLine methods or is it just part of the .NET Framework? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every platform that hosts C# programs exposes the System.Console class.  In some execution environments (e.g. certain background services or graphical applications), standard input/output may be discarded, but every environment allows you to call the methods of System.Console.  Rod (A. Smith) 08:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you could have Macs produce console output? I think we need an article like Comparison of C# and Microsoft Visual C#. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You certainly can do that on Mac OS X. Assuming we would have a C# implementation running on classic Mac, the limitations would be the same as for plain C programs - they too have stdin/stdout/stderr regardless of the platform, but there's no guarantee as to where the input comes from and where the output goes. -- int19h 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm definitely up for that C# vs Visual C# article. With Mono now working, and other open-source C# implementations in the works, it could be very interesting. We'll have to pour through the ECMA Standards and documentation, so it wouldn't be easy. But I would register and contribute if an article like this will be done! :) By the way, I have a copy of Mono and a virtual machine running Linux. I've tested a bit of C# on it so far, and all of the Console members work just fine. The reason is because whatever CLR/VM environment runs the C# application and JITs it will link its calls to the equivalent native API members/functions. So if it's (contrived example) writesomething(char[] c) on operating system A, Console.WriteLine() will call that. If it's writeword(LPSTR* lp) on operating system B, that is the call made. Think of the JIT as linking the IL code to appropriate native APIs as it compiles, to put it simply.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.32 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  C# 

message: The article doesn't offer anything new (as compared to this one) except that it is the MS impl of C# spec. And considering that C# and Visual C# are virtually the same, I think it would be better if that was just merged into this. What say? --soum talk 10:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: in MSVS They are the same actully .   A M M A R  12:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ok by me. That one should be changed to redirect to here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leotohill (talk • contribs) 16:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are actually two things that goes by the name of Visual C#: the compiler and the language services which integrate C# language support into the VS IDE. The former is independent of Visual Studio while the latter is a part of VStudio (in fact, there are two flavors to the latter - one which installs the services into a different Visual Studio Shell AppId, commonly known as Visual C# Express, and another which installs into the Standard/Professional/Team System AppId). With that in mind, I guess a redirect here isn't that good an option. Best redirect to VStudio article and in the Visual C# section mention the different and link to this article. I will wait for a few more comments before performing the redirect. --soum talk 09:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual C# 

message: I don't see how C# can be called a functional language.  Delegates are not first class objects and C# isn't used as a functional language in practice (and more than C++ or Java).  Outside of some relevant expert testimony, I think "functional" should be removed from the description here and the the Comparision of Programming Languages article.  I've looked through the archives and didn't see discussion about this earlier, so I'm going to add citation needed marks to the "functional" claims.  The results of the discussion can remove one or both. Da Twink Daddy (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Functional? 

message: There's a section entitled "C# 3.0 new language features", but the things described there are all .Net 3.0 added functionality. Nothing to do with the C# language, as far as I know. --RenniePet (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, .NET 3.0 and 3.5 used CLR 2.0 only. It adds nothing else. Everything is done at language level. --soum talk 16:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't understand. What do things like Windows Communication Foundation, Windows Presentation Foundation, Windows Workflow Foundation, and Using CardSpace in the Windows Communication Foundation have to do with the C# language? --RenniePet (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Were you referring to this rev? I am sorry I missed the misinformed edit? --soum talk 06:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I was talking about. --RenniePet (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that the new Visual Studio features are NOT new features of the C# programming language and do not belong in the C# discussion. It is important to distinguish between C# and Visual StudioWillbennett2007 (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  C# 3.0 new language features? 

message: Apparently, ECMA 334 4th edition corresponds to C# 2.0, not to C# 4.0 as stated. Nor does ECMA 334 3rd edition correspond to C# 3.0.
In May 2010, there does not seem to be an ECMA standard for C# 3.0 and C# 4.0. But I have not been able to find an authoritative reference for this. ThorbjoernHansen (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECMA 334 4th edition corresponds to C# 2.0 

message: There's a good section on the language name at the VERY END of the article. Surely some bit of it needs to go into the LEAD, which is supposed to summarize the article? Perhaps I did have too much of that in, but it's a fairly important bit of general knowledge about C# that the name is (almost always) not written with a sharp. And perhaps the etymology/naming section needs to go a little earlier in the article, as is proper for just about any subject?SBHarris 04:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to have now been implemented.  Perhaps it is time to archive some of the older resolved sections from this talk page?  It is confusing to see sections like this that have been completed, but haven't been marked as completed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.47.30 (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language name 

message: I am not an expert.  If I'm getting my terminology right, Java and C# are both managed, Object-Oriented languages with generally C derived syntax.  If I got the terminology right, that is basically incontrovertible, and belongs in a wikipedia article.
The creator of C# was probably talking about the specific syntax, and basically the "uniqueness" of C#, he was saying, "in the ways C# is unique, they are a branch of C++, and not Java."  What the creator of Java was saying, was that fundamentally, they're almost identical, much the way that french and english are very similar, or french and spanish, or italian.
I don't understand why wikipedia doesn't have common sections.  For instance, a subsection describing managed programming languages that would appear verbatim in the description of the article describing every managed programming language.  So, if you have two articles both on managed, object oriented programming languages, both articles would have the same few paragraphs describing managed languages, and the same few paragraphs describing object oriented programming languates, perhaps with one, or several sections on how the language described in the article is unique, like, "c# is like other managed languages, but purple"173.66.178.90 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have such an OO construct here, called templates. Particularly relevant is Help:Template#Pages with a common section. I've seen these used for tables of data but never for tracts of text, though. It would be confusing if somebody wanted part of the common text to diverge again in the future: most WP editors wouldn't know how to do this without spending time reading up. The normal way to achieve what you suggest is to have a separate, normal, parent article, e.g. Managed programming languages, and link to it from all relevant articles, like WP:SPINOUT in reverse. The hard bit would be deciding the topic of the new parent... Managed, object-oriented languages with C-derived syntax anyone? --Nigelj (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a thought, but say someone wants to correct a template, they goto edit, and they don't see the template, they see a link to a page explaining the purpose as a generic template, and and explanation that context edits should be made outside the template in articles, and that the template should be kept generic.164.106.249.254 (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Describing the common features