|WikiProject Software / Computing|
I don't think that most of the "slander" removed by an anonymous editor recently is too far out of line, but citations and carefully qualifying opinions as such would be a good idea. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 11:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I reinserted some of the criticisms, although I tried to tone them down somewhat and added a few points of my own that will hopefully explain the reasons for criticism. By the way,
- For these reasons, it is considered by some that rather than an accurate C++ interpreter, CINT can be viewed as a non-deterministic interpreter for an ill-defined macro language whose syntax and behaviour bears a rough, but inaccurate, similarity to C++
didn't make the cut. I find the comment insightful personally, but it could be considered a little too mean-spirited to be encyclopedic, and I didn't know how to rewrite it. Project #1 for anyone willing.
I added a link to User:Andybuckley's ROOT criticism page as a citation. I realize it is Andybuckley's original edits that were an issue to some users, and ideally we should additionally (or instead) have a citation from a source who hasn't personally edited the article, but 1. as far as I can tell from some cursory googling, this is the most extensive single collection of ROOT criticisms, 2. it's no less a qualified expert opinion than many other external links on Wikipedia, and 3. it's not my original research. In any case, the fact that Wikipedia has articles on subjects such as this one that will probably never be discussed in a peer-reviewed journal means we will need to rely on (possibly biased) individual expert opinion to give a balanced view (otherwise we will have quite a few pro-<insert software project here> articles that read like their respective user manuals).
An interesting project #2 for a disinterested Wikipedipedian with some free time and a web server would be to gather up the criticism/responses from the ROOT mailing list and summarize. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 09:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
compare with compilers?
There are a lot of C and C++ Compilers. None is 100% compatible with the iso standards. The article says it`s 95% of ANSI C and 85% of C++. Maybe we should compare this with gcc and g++ too so the reader can get a feeling how much code change would be needed (or not)?
There is a project called underC. Website is http://home.mweb.co.za/sd/sdonovan/underc.html. It looks quite well and after very little testing it also works quite well. Would it worth to make an own page for underC. Or to compare with cint on this page?
other similar projects
Also searching for eic interpreter on google brings some results. Dunno if this is already in a worth stage to add it. Are there also other interpreters for c?