Talk:C Sharp (programming language)

This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject icon Microsoft : .NET Top‐importance

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft

Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taskforce icon This article is supported by WikiProject .NET (assessed as Top-importance).

WikiProject icon Computing High‐importance

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject icon

Computer science High‐importance

WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science }}

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

RM, C Sharp (programming language) → C♯ (programming language), Not moved, 3 May 2011, Requested move
RM, C Sharp (programming language) → C♯ (programming language), Not moved, 28 January 2013, Requested move 2
RM, C Sharp (programming language) → C♯ (programming language), Not moved, 23 August 2018, Requested move 23 August 2018
RM, C Sharp (programming language) → C-Sharp (programming language), Not moved, 18 January 2023, Requested move 18 January 2023

Archives

Index

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Correct logo

[edit ]

Based on discussion of the purple logo file over at Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C_Sharp_logo.svg), there's been a small edit war over the logo used here. The discussion over there indicated that the purple logo is not used in any official documentation, but that a green wordmark (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C_Sharp_wordmark.svg) is (for example, at https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/). Because the discussion over there began to divulge into whether or not the logo should be used here, I figured I'd start this off by giving support for changing the logo to the green wordmark here. Eiim (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

Putting a logo in an infobox makes it seem like it's some sort of official thing. So unless someone can find an example of Microsoft actually using this purple logo, I agree that we should keep the green wordmark. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

'Scope' specification missing from summary box

[edit ]

The article on SmallTalk lists a 'Scope' approach right under the 'Typing Discipline' but the C# article lacks this. Could it be added for consistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.125.69 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Undiscussed move

[edit ]

Not sure why anyone would move this page without discussion given the three prior failed RM's, but here we are. I am emphatically against a hyphen for this article. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I've reverted the move. @Mast303: if you want the article's name changed then please follow the instructions at WP:RMCM and open a move discussion at this talk page. SkyWarrior 22:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

@SkyWarrior It looks like the archives may have gone on an unfortunate ride though, as they appear to be at the C-Sharp talk subpages. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm fixing that right now. SkyWarrior 22:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

@Locke Cole: Should be fixed now; I just manually moved the talk pages back. Let me know if I missed anything. SkyWarrior 22:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks =) will do! —Locke Cole • t • c 22:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Requested move 18 January 2023

[edit ]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per WP:SNOW. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! (投稿) 20:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

C Sharp (programming language) → C-Sharp (programming language) C-Sharp (programming language) – Consistency; other similar names (e.g. F-sharp major) are hyphenated. Mast303 (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

This is a weird one because technical restrictions prevent it from being located at C#, so we can't rely on sources. O.N.R. ^(talk) 04:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose, it is only at this page because the MediaWiki software (and web standards in general) aren't agreeable to using an actual # symbol in an article title. Adding a hyphen would make the title even more wrong than it already is. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose. F-sharp major is a relatively common alternate spelling of the key, but C# is the only common spelling of the programming language. If we cannot use it due to technical restrictions, then we should use a minimally simplified version of it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose. I'm not sure how musical names are more than superficially similar Erinius (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose F-sharp major is a musical key, but this article is about a programming language. Since they are of different subjects, I don’t think the reason to move this article is reasonable Ilovejames 5🚂 :) 05:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- Comment I personally think you all confused the dash as a hyphen Ilovejames 5🚂 :) 05:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
Oppose. I have occasionally seen it as "C-Sharp" but both "C Sharp" and "CSharp" are, I believe, more commonly used than "C-Sharp" for when "C#" can't be used for whatever reason. Skynxnex (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broken reference

[edit ]

Reference [3], for the current preview version, is broken. I don't really know the specifics of how this works, but I think it's because the wikidata page is missing a title and retrieved date for the reference. The wikidata page is semi-protected so I don't think I can fix that, but hopefully this'll grab the attention of someone who can. Maybeitsmir (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Fixed. I think the problem was there was still an entry for the preview version of 11.0, as well as the stable version of 11.0 after it, which must have confused something. I got rid of the preview version of 11.0 and it was automatically removed from the infobox, which I believe is correct because I don't think a preview version of C# is out at this time. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Reference Kreft / Langer

[edit ]

A moment ago I updated some items in the list of references. When in the course of this I read the article by Kreft / Langer "After Java and C# - what is next" (reference 28), I started to wonder: Should we really mention the point of view of these two authors "Java and C# are so similar"? After all, does the verdict of Kreft / Langer still have any relevance if a few lines before they state that Fortran and COBOL are also "very similar languages"? What do you think? FePo2 (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I would leave it. Not many people would argue that Java and C# are not similar. Perhaps we could find a better reference, but this one is fine for now. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

>Not many people would argue that Java and C# are not similar.

That surely is true. However ...

>Perhaps we could find a better reference

...the article already quotes two well-respected persons (Gosling, Joy) who point out this similarity. So one could consider a third reference as being at least redundant. But even more regrettable is that Kreft / Langer seem to me to be a reference of questionable quality, since their statement on Fortran vs. COBOL disqualifies them, to some extent, as objective reviewers. Anyone reading the C# article as it is now is missing the (in my opinion) not unimportant information that Kreft / Langer have a somewhat, let's say, "peculiar" definition of "similar programming languages".

If someone tells me that red and blue are similar colors, I might tolerate this view, however I would henceforth not consult him or her as a referee on the subject of similarity of colors. FePo2 (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

It looks like no one but the two of us have an opinion on the subject. I will delete this reference for the sake of a test, at the risk that there will be an outcry. 🙂 FePo2 (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]