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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.
I agree. Syntax is highly tecnical, and per WP:UPFRONT should be after more general sections like history and design goals. I've moved it downwards. Diego (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I am new to Wikipedia, and I figured that the article was mainly about what the language is, and not about the context, usage, and development of the language. Obviously, I am not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines enough. Randomizer3 (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
In a wiki about programming, you'd be right. But always have in mind that Wikipedia is for all audiences; someone who is not a programmer (a journalist, a manager) might want to learn what C# is for (as opposed to how it's used), and general sections about context are more informative for most people. Diego (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Per Neutral Point of View, should the page really state that it influenced Java, as the source even states that, "In my opinion, it is C# that has caused these radical changes to the Java language."
This could be disputed because Java influenced C#, and the source even states that it is one person's opinion. -TheLunarFrog (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
They are contemporary and quite similar languages targeting the same audience. I don't think anyone would dispute there's is some mutual influencing going on here (e.g. Project Lambda). Adding an additional reference e.g. discussing more recent versions of the two languages (Java 7/8, C# 4/5) couldn't hurt, though. —Ruud 00:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Strong Oppose. Man, I hate this requests. I really want this to happen because I like the "C♯" look better than "C Sharp". But rules are rules. Via MOS:TM. Srsrox (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.