User talk:Crazycomputers/Archive 6

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello,

C++++ may be speculation. However I think it may be speculation that the musical note statement is complete and factual as to the original idea of the name.

Apparently, the email is from a customer service agent. An email from a lead architect or executive would be a more authoritative source. Also, I question whether Microsoft Corporation is a neutral source in this case. Even if the original idea was C++++, the company representatives may state otherwise based on marketing or legal reasons. Instructions to present it this way may come from top executives in the company. (It is wrong to be dishonest but do we doubt that there has been dishonesty in the business world?)

I think the increment of ++ is more logical than the analogy of the sharp symbol as half step up (in tone). Is it a coincidence that the sharp symbol is also four plus signs combined?

You say that I have no valid citation (based on Wiki rules.) That is one reason.

I have three proposed reasons why C++++ should carry as much weight if not more than the muscial note statement:
1. The source is not reliable enough - customer service.
2. It is not neutral. It is a billion dollar corporation with marketing and legal motives.
3. Logic: C++++ is more logical from the C language perspective.

By the way, I think the C# language itself is excellent. I already use it and plan to continue to use it.

Coder1024 21:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Customer service from the organization that invented the language.
2. They are also the definitive source.
3. No it isn't, int c = 0; c++++; will not compile. It makes no more sense than using musical notation.

--Chris (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is still the customer service department. I don't think this is finalizing research if you want to be official about sources.

Yes, they invented the language. That is my point. They are not neutral. (Sadly) A billion dollar company may avoid disclosure based on business interests.

> ... c++++; will not compile.
First of all, there is no rule that the concept has to compile.

Secondly. Consider this:
c = 0;
c++;
c++;

That does compile and notice that it is a sqaure formation that compiles! Just like the "#" symbol!

Coder1024 21:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This still seems to me more like somebody's pet theory that got propagated across the web than anything reliable. --Chris (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you relying on Microsoft Corporation as a neutral (billion dollar business) and reliable (customer service) source to decide that you have the authority to delete others' posts? It may very well be that the original idea for the name is the four plus signs. Sources must be neutral and reliable.

Do you think that Microsft Corporation would state the actual history of the name rather than a marketing explanation if there was a business interest? Do you think there is a business interest in disconnecting C# from C++? I think there very well may be. If C# is based on C++++ (or similar form) then people who use C++ may observe that C# is not really the next step in C++. Since C++0x is actually the next step in C++, C++ users may wait for that rather than switch to C# if C# is trying to be C++++. C++0x would mean that C# is not the real C++++ in the eyes of C++ users. Don't you think Microsoft Corporation would realize that? Many people are already debating whether to use C++ or C# more heavily. So any ambiguity or doubts about C# could cause C++ users to stay with C++.

Also, most Linux developers use C++. Would it not be a business interest of Microsoft Corporation to have C++ users using C# so they will be less skilled in C++ which is the main language used for Linux development?

Therefore I think to claim the source as neutral is just as shaky if not shakier than what you call "somebody's pet theory". Wikipedia is a public arena that is to be neutral and free from politics including the ability of billion dollar corporations to influence what is recorded.

If a standard is going to be held to, then it should be held to consistently. Therefore the musical note explanation should be deleted. Since the musical note explanation may be a product marketing fallacy or emphasis, it cannot be considered a solid source.

Coder1024 00:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically, according to your points, we have no "reliable" sources on the language name, so how about we just delete the whole section?

On the first point, of course Microsoft could influence the name of the language, in the same way that the language developers could. They could have come up with the name for whatever reason, but used any explanation in a published work on the subject. So they are incorrect, but it would be a reliable source by most people's standards. So this supposed reliable source that doesn't exist is just as fallible as the ones presented now.

On the Linux front, you might want to actually hang out with Linux developers before making such a sweeping judgment. Very few of the developers I talk to use C++, with the exception of the KDE crowd. Most use C, Perl, or even C# (with Mono). So I'd suggest doing your research on that one.

No offense, but the question of a billion dollar company influencing what is recorded seems like BS to me. They invented the language. Why are we citing web tutorials that speculate about the language name without even citing their own source when we have a letter from the company that invented and named the language? What would you consider a reliable source to me? This seems pretty much like as close to a primary source as you can get.

Also as an afterthought, I'd appreciate it if you'd make one edit to my talk page instead of constantly refactoring your messages. Use the preview button. I get a notice whenever you edit this page, but I don't feel like I can reply because the notices keep popping up, so I have to wait until they've stopped for a half hour before it makes any sense to respond. --Chris (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

> On the Linux front...Very few of the developers I talk to use C++.
Microsoft Corporation's hold on the market is largely due to OS capabilities and hardware support (granted app compatibility is key also). The Linux OS itself and drivers are mainly written in C/C++. Therefore, if people focus on C++ this increases the pool of people whose talents are helpful to Linux. Do you doubt that Microsoft Corporation wants to steer people to C# for this reason? I don't.

Reliability is dependent upon neutrality. If a source is not neutral then reliability loses its bearing. Therefore Microsoft can neither be considered neutral nor reliable.

Microsoft "invented" the language. "Invented" in quotes becuase they hired a Delphi developer who also drew from C++ and Java. Don't you think the CLR garbage collection ("managed") is based on Java? The GC idea for Java itself probably originated from Cedar (based on Mesa). Bill Joy was interested in Mesa. Mesa was invented by Xerox. Speaking of Xerox, isn't that where much of the window GUI ideas came from? Microsoft is a business. A responsible Wiki article separates corporate marketing (and potential fallacies) from factual information.

The article should at least qualify that the company "represents" the name to be based on a musical note but that this does not mean that the factual origin of the name is not some other source (e.g. developer's use of four '+'s). Because, using Microsoft Corporation as a source, that's all you can really say that is known for sure - that this is how the company (customer service representative) "represents" the basis of the name. One cannot claim that a corporate business representative is a source for historical factual information. Look at the history of the term "windows". If you look up the history of the graphical user interface right in Wikipedia, you will find that Xerox called it "WIMP" (windows, icons, menus, and pointers). The wiki section on Microsoft Windows (R) has no reference to that and it does not discuss the history of the name. Consider why the Microsoft Windows (R) wiki article does not discuss where the idea for the OS name came from! The term windows was in use long before the Microsoft usage. Even "Microsoft DirectX (R)" probably means direct "X windows"! Look at "basic", "office", "word", "net". So many of Microsoft's products are named after commonly used terms. Therefore it is reasonable to think that C to C++ to double "++" was the original idea for the name. It seems highly questionable that it is based on musical notes. I think the article may be posting corporate marketing as factual historical information and misleading people based on a non-neutral source as what the facts really are. So yes, it should be clarified to present a realistic un-biased picture to the reader.

Coder1024 03:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I had written a reply, but my browser decided it would rather crash before I saved it. Of course this was in the middle of an edit conflict with you, so I must again ask that you edit this page once when you are posting a message. There is a nifty "Show preview" button that you can use, as well as edit messages in your userspace and then paste them here. I'm getting tired of having to reload the edit page to reply to you. I'm not trying to be mean, but this is getting very irritating.

C is the main language used to develop the Linux kernel and most services and utilities. C++ is used primarily by KDE folk. I haven't seen it used much elsewhere, except perhaps with games. There is also a large volume of desktop software for Linux being written in C#. This page lists quite a few, but is not complete. So this idea that Microsoft is trying to get people to switch to C# for its own benefit is invalid. Many of these applications won't even run on Windows. If they wanted to keep the language for Windows they would not have standardized either C# or the CLR.

If you want to talk about using neutral sources then I'd suggest removing every citation of CNN from Wikipedia. Of course, you really shouldn't, as this would violate WP:POINT, but you see where I'm going. Sources are inherently biased, CNN being a more extreme example, but I challenge you to find me one truly unbiased source.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by marking C#'s similarities to Java. (Which, in fact, are totally unrelated to C#, but are properties of the Common Language Runtime.) Yes, Microsoft copied some things from Java. What does this have to do with the name of the language?

It should also be noted that the EMCA spec defines the pronunciation of the language name as "C Sharp," and while this is not definitive proof that "sharp" refers to the musical note, it does agree with Microsoft's position, so it may be considered circumstantial evidence. In the current article text it says "Microsoft clarifies the language name as follows:" before it makes a reference to the email. So the article does qualify that the company is saying this. --Chris (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

>Yes, Microsoft copied some things from Java. What does this have to do with the name of the language?
You said they "invented" C# as a basis for their reliability as a source. I am showing that "invented" does not mean that the company is necessarily giving factual information about the name. I gave many other examples of product names such as the OS that are not names they originated even though they developed the technology. I also pointed out that the wiki article on the OS does not even discuss the history of the name. So I have given many examples showing that Microsoft Corporation is not a neutral or reliable source regarding names since the majority of the names of their key products are based on previous terms (even though they invented/developed the technology). Therefore the evidence is against C# as being based on musical notes even if that is what the company represents.

> If they wanted to keep the language for Windows they would not have standardized either C# or the CLR.
They are a business and I'm sure they spend much time strategizing. It's "standard" and they need to be ready in case Linux does take off, so that they can use their framework on it. However they control the "standard". Also Dr. Bjarne Stroustrup, the inventor of C++, sees that Microsoft ties languages to the OS: Dr. Bjarne Stroustrup on the subject

> ...I'd suggest removing every citation of CNN from Wikipedia
It is you who are deleting posts in this case - not me :-) You are being lax about neutrality and I am being lax about sources. If one is to interpret the rules then one must be consistent.

> So the article does qualify that the company is saying this.
The purpose of the wiki is to present factual historical information - not to present potential marketing fallacies and justify it because the source is given. That's like saying drinking 15 cans of cola a day is healthy and quoting a soda company as the source. It is clear that the source is not neutral so there is nothing hidden there, true. However, presenting the information itself is useless since the claim that drinking 15 cans of cola a day is healthy is not factual information.

If the article did not even discuss the origin of the name this would make it consistent with the article about the OS that keeps a clear focus on the OS as a product. There is a separate article for the history of GUI. There could be a separate article for the history of C-like language names.

Coder1024 05:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have this guilty-until-proven-innocent notion on Microsoft's reliability as to the origin of the names of their products. You have cited numerous examples of where various names have come from, but I don't see any citations that show Microsoft disagreeing with them. The evidence is not "against" C# being based in music according to your arguments, there just isn't any evidence of it... at least I think that's what you're trying to say.

On the closeness of C# to Windows, the link you've provided does no better than the web tutorial you are using to justify the C++++ naming theory. "X is true" is not justification, it's someone's unreliable opinion. He has not demonstrated that C# as a language is tied to the Windows platform, and in fact it is not. The framework libraries commonly used with C# are, however, but this says nothing about the language itself.

On laxness of reliability, I am being consistent. I haven't argued against CNN, just said that no source is completely neutral. So again, I don't see your point there. You will also note that I have not deleted your "post" since this discussion began, because it would be premature to do so. I am merely arguing that you get a better source for your claim, if one exists. IMHO, Microsoft is far more reliable than some random web tutorial. You may disagree with that, but that's the position I'm arguing from.

Yes, the purpose of Wikipedia is to present factual information. I would hardly consider speculation in a web tutorial factual information. You may consider using Microsoft as a source to be the same. So we are simply in disagreement about the other's source.

The article discusses the origin of the name because it is apparently of interest, seeing as the article was warred over regarding it well before either of us started editing it. There are strong sentiments on both sides, and while I would not object to a trimming of the section, we should at least keep the parts that are verifiable: that the octothorpe (#) is used in the typed form of the name, and not the musical sharp symbol.

(But if the musical sharp symbol was used in literature before the standard was widely known, is that not evidence of the name's origin? Why would they put four +'s together and then use the sharp symbol, instead of just using "#"? The sharp symbol does not look like four +'s merged, but it could represent two L's, one rotated. In that light, the origin in the musical notation symbol seems to make a lot more sense to me. Just a thought.)

If you do not object to this idea I might fork the article and work towards a solution that uses none of these sources. --Chris (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.