Wikipedia:Peer review/C++/archive1

C++

C++ is already a good article, but needs alot of cleanup. It seems to be too long write now, so what can be moved or removed? Is everything copyedited? And is anything innacurate or in need of expansion?MadCow257 02:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operators section is only a link (the objects that are discussed next are not operators). There's a lot of coding that could be linked to instead of being included. The section "Standard template library" is far too technical and the code in it is complete gibberish to me. If you want it shortened, you could probably spin off the history section into an article of its own, leaving behind a shorter summary. In general cut on the coding examples and get rid of programmer speak. - 131.211.210.15 09:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is having less code neccesary? It's basic and short, and articles should be gratifying to both the general public and those interested in the topic right?MadCow257 13:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to take the geekiness out of this article and make it enjoyable for the general audience. Passages such as the following really need to be removed entirely:

Some C programmers have noted that if the statements x=3; and y=x++; are executed, then x==4 and y==3; x is incremented after its value is assigned to y. However, if the second statement is y=++x;, then y==4 and x==4. Following such reasoning, a more proper name for C++ might actually be ++C. However, c++ and ++c both increment c, and, on its own line, the form c++ is more common than ++c. However, the introduction of C++ did not change the C language itself, so an even more accurate name might be "C+1".

Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Article suffers from some poor header organization:~~
  - ~~"Standard Library" alone under Resources.~~
- From the philosophy section I quote "C++ is designed to directly and comprehensively support multiple programming styles (procedural programming, data abstraction, object-oriented programming, and generic programming)". Okay, this is nice to know, but where is this support discussed? The polymorphism header (under objects under syntax :( ) mentions templates but only discusses function overloading and uses "member function" instead of simply "function" a lot of times for no reason.
- Big code examples are used instead of prose. I think it would be best to limit code example to a few lines, say 5. If you need much more, then something is wrong.
  With the programming language, or the article? :D --zippedmartin 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After these issues are fixed it will be easier to see if there are any more blatant omissions. -MarSch 15:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little comment: the explanation of the name C++ reads the form c++ is more common than ++c, which I think is factually inaccurate. As far as I know more programmers prefer ++c to c++ as it's faster. --De ryck C. 05:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A brief/more mention about the various techniques and stumbling blocks (I'm thinking Resource_Acquisition_Is_Initialization personally) could be helpful. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]