Talk:SharpDevelop

message: There are two different links to an "official web site". Is this correct? --RenniePet (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official web site? 

message: That statement regarding "almost every important feature" is apparently using a primary source, and is a notability claim.  That needs some substantial third-party sources, which delineate the features which are and are not part of Visual Studio.  Bear in mind that the express versions are much-reduced from Visual Studio, and referring to the two as the same is misleading. TEDickey (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, primary claims should literally be quotes directly attributed to the developers in the prose, as in how I left it a few edits back - primary sourcing should never be hidden from the reader of the prose. Should revert this to avoid WP:ADV. --Lexein (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In essence, I'm just trying to explain that it contains every basic feature needed for development like VS. I used the word "important" to show that the basics are workable and you can use it like normal. Basics = project templates, code editing, GUI editing, intellisense, debugging, unit testing, etc. That is the reason I originally described all the major features in the lead, to justify/explain that statement. Someone put that statement into features, and then the statement becomes weak without explanation and you cry out for primary sources. I don't need primary sources to prove that a Pencil is a Writing Tool, because if I can explain how it is a writing tool, that statement justifies itself. So you tell me what you think should be done. But I ask that you look from a reader's POV, one who comes from a VS background and how you can explain to him/her that SD is a viable alternative easily. -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 10:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to stress you out.  Basically, Wikipedia's voice is that of independent secondary sources. We try to avoid being mouthpieces for primary sources.  The quote was primary sourced, and attributed in the prose to the developers - this is proper distancing language. If secondary sources do not directly support the product's feature-for-feature matchup then neither can we - to do so would be WP:OR, or if only primary sources say so, and we don't quote them, WP:UNDUE. If secondary sources separately support claims of support of separate subsets of features, we must be careful to avoid WP:SYNTH, and not say that all features are replicated.   We could at this time say some variation that the developers intend or plan to match the product's feature set with commercial offerings, unquoted, while citing the primary source. --Lexein (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for sounding stressed out, and apologies for my lack of understanding in such a complicated situation. Thank you for the explanation, but this only toughens the point for me. I'm trying to show that its a viable alternative, nothing more. Since I come from a VS background, it took me a couple of years to think of trying such a tool out. And when I did, turns out it runs much faster and generally works fine for small-medium apps, the GUI is more responsive and it supports the default/custom .NET components. And the install requires 50 MB, not 5 GB on your hard drive. Now I'm trying to transfer such experience to the reader, struggling to get past the requirements of WP. Sorry for being such a dolt but I'm rather simple minded in my approach, usually being WP:BOLD and trying to get the flat facts on the paper, in as unbiased a tone as possible. -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 08:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  primary source used for notability claim 

message: Isn't the compiler itself part of the SDK (from Microsoft)?  If that's the case, it's a pointless statement, except for promotional purposes. TEDickey (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What?! How is anyone going to know about that? Whether its part of the MS SDK or Apple SDK doesn't mean anything to anyone. If it doesn't compile .NET apps, Sharpdevelop is entirely useless. It is extremely important to explain that it is actually workable, and functions like VS. Most devs come from a VS background so you're trying to explain that SD is able to work approximately the same. An important part of WP articles is that you break down the topic and explain each part separately, whether it being obvious or not. It seems like you've got some hatred towards Sharpdevelop that you want to make it as hard to understand as possible. Do you work for MS or something? -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 09:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is whether they wrote their own compiler or provided (or adapted) configuration files.  I'm pointing out places where the statements made don't appear to follow the sources.  Going beyond the sources can be construed as promotional - that's essentially what marketing does, requiring readers to discount much of what's said.  By following the sources more closely, and checking for reliable secondary sources (not download sites, which cut/paste from the developer's adverts), it's possible to get a reasonably neutral topic. Taking a note from another editor, you might read WP:AGF to get some additional context. TEDickey (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got some good points, ted, and I'm no expert in WP policies, or sources for that matter. I'm trying to place what I believe to be fact - that SD is about as fine as VS (which I was willing to back up with a detailed list of features), although it may not support advanced features, the basics are workable. I don't know what else I can do at this point. Sorry for ABF. -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 08:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, reviewing the available sources and pruning out the ones that only casually mention, or balancing out those that do/don't agree with your viewpoint are a general way to proceed. TEDickey (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  able to compile 

message: This statement is actually false.  A good amount of Sharp Develop still uses Windows Forms inside of WPF wrappers.  A quick rifle through the source code shows this. Sircmpwn (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my impression (which is why I raised the issue of SDK, etc).  The secondary sourcing is still very weak, and the topic's promoters don't seem inclined to dig this deeply. TEDickey (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re: "SharpDevelop 4.0 has been rewritten ..."  Without defending it, I think this is SOP for MS to say to devs, "leverage your Forms by just wrapping them, for a whole new interface!" So it's not technically false, just very misleading, and worthy of deletion as unsourced.  --Lexein (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full WPF Redesign 

message: ; Architecture
:SharpDevelop uses its own parsers for C# and VB.NET code completion. The parsers were generated using a grammar description and a modified version of the Coco/R compiler generator of the University of Linz, which is included in the source code.  For Boo, the parser from the Boo compiler is used, but resolving the type of expressions and type inference is done with custom code that supports lazy evaluation of the types.  
:The integrated SharpDevelop debugger uses its own debugging library that communicates with the Microsoft .NET runtime using COM interop.  SharpDevelop 4.0 has been rewritten to have a full WPF interface and is based on .NET 4.0. It also uses Microsoft's new MSBuild API.
The last sentence has been flagged (above) as (at best) misleading. --Lexein (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced section moved here for discussion, sourcing