Talk:Dev-C++

Does the Embarcadero "update" enforce analytics?
I have looked at the Embarcadero "free" download and above the download button is a disclaimer which states that downloading the software tacitly includes consent to having ones details and usage farmed. If it does force users to submit to analytics or data mining behaviour can this fact please be added to the main entry. Vapourmile (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Dev-C++ Development
This article should contain a mention of some kind of this recent thread about development of Dev-C++ in recent months

Problems
For future reference, it appears all of the above problems have been solved. —Brandon Dusseau (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "sponsored by sourceforge": Sourceforge don't sponsor it, they host it.
 * 2) "laplace's company, Bloodshed": He explicitly says on the website that one reason for choosing that name was to avoid people thinking it's the name of a company.
 * 3) Can you not count? Who cares what the company's name is? It is Bloodshed and you can visit their website. And, if Sourceforge hosts it, they sponsor it. Rogueleader1234 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) It's a bit confusing that this page talks about "the C/C++ programming language", since there is no such language. There are two languages: C and C++. Given its name, I would assume that Dev-C++ supports C++, but how is the support for plain old C? (I haven't used Dev-C++ myself, so I don't know.)

Devpacks
Quote too long,needs to be trimmed.--Shashankgupta (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The website's down
Or at least the Bloodshed domain is no longer active. So should it be removed from the article or something? Because the link just leads to a page of ads. Apoyon (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a notice to the link. I wouldn't take it down because chances are the website will be back eventually, unless the developer died or something (unlikely). —Brandon Dusseau (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

shouldn't we figure out why it is down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanmugammpl (talk • contribs) 05:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What would be the point of that? It looks like the domain just got unregistered and taken over by a domain hog. I'm sure it will be bought back ASAP. —Brandon Dusseau (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * are there any alliterative links.124.185.131.179 (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Site is back up.--69.111.110.158 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh I bloodshed is not back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.38.4.194 (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC
The first reference is to the official website, and the other one is to a forum post. Both of those aren't reliable sources. What do you guys think? Endofskull (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, neither are reliable sources. Furthermore, the information cited by the official website in the lead is awfully jargon-y (almost to the point of being incomprehensible) and very self-promoting. I don't even think the article meets notability requirements. There are a total of four google scholar hits (none of which are in English), and all of the links in the first few pages of main google are all primary (or non-reliable) sources. Hard to built an article off of that, should be put it in WP:AfD. > Minnecologies Talk 13:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded - AfD is a good place to examine lack of notability or evidence of it, not least as the process seems more often to prompt editors to find references if they exist. As it stands it sounds like a notable piece of software but notability requires evidence from reliable sources.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, if the official website is used as a citation for objective statements, or to supplement third-party citations, then it is acceptable. (This is supported by WP:RS, I believe.) The forum post, however, is not a reliable source, unless it is exceptional per WP:SPS, which I do not think it is.
 * In regards to Minnecologies' assertion that the lede is "jargon-y", I strongly disagree. It is mainly informative and to the point, although it needs better structure, removal of subjective adjectives, and clarification of apparent contradictions. Can examples of jargon and rationale be provided for scrutiny? It is my experience that some people will dismiss statements they don't understand as jargon and nonsense, while praising actual nonsense which they can understand as exemplary writing. My intention is not to portray participants of this RFC negatively, but to ensure that this article is not affected negatively by misunderstandings.
 * In regards to notability, I have no opinion of the topic yet. However, I do wish to point out that Minnecologies' methodology is flawed. Google Scholar indexes a narrow selection of literature, that being papers and their citations. I am extremely interested why only Google Scholar was consulted. What prompted use of such methodology? I know nothing of Dev-C++ (I have just learned of it now from the RFC), but a quick examinination of the article, and a quick Google search does not indicate why Google Scholar is preferred. In fact, Google Books provides some examples of the software used for teaching C++. I have yet to examine search results more deeply, but I think that an AfD is inappropriate at this time. Further more, I find JohnBlckburne's comments regarding using AfD to compel editors to improve the article troubling. AfD is not for forcing improvements per WP:AfD. Rilak (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I AFD it? Endofskull (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I default to Google scholar because in my opinion software should have some formal review that verifies its notability. Otherwise, what would one use to differentiate between software that's noteworthy versus something that some college student created for a university project and uploaded to sourceforge? Also, as I italicized above, I did include the main Google in my initial search and which I based my opinions off of. Pages upon pages of mainly "Tutorial", "set-up", "forum", "how to install". What is one going to write off of that? A how to manual?
 * The third paragraph in the lead is what I was referring to when I made the "jargon-y" remark:
 * Bloodshed Dev-C++ is a full-featured Integrated Development Environment (IDE) for the C and C++ programming languages. It uses the MinGW port of the GCC (GNU Compiler Collection) as its compiler. Dev-C++ can also be used in combination with Cygwin or any other GCC-based compiler.[1]
 * It is my experience that some people will dismiss statements they don't understand as jargon and nonsense...; Merriam-Webster's definition of jargon: the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group, which is exactly what that paragraph is.
 * I would say that it would make sense to wait and see if any more coverage or development (or references) is to be expected in the future, but as the article itself even says, there hasn't been any news or updates in over 5 years (unless one's also looking at wxDev-C++). If the article better explained its significance in the grand scheme of C++ programming, then it'd be worth reading. I don't know what it is now (besides promotional). Maybe bringing it to AfD would open it to editors who have a different take on the matter. > Minnecologies Talk 02:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree entirely that Google Scholar or scholarly sources should be default for software in general. That may be the case for academic research and in certain fields (electronic design automation, for instance, which is within my interests, circuit synthesis and simulation are popular perpetual topics of research). I am not an expert on integrated development environments (merely a user of them), so I struggle to think of what aspect of such software is of interest scholars. Can you think of any reason why software of this type should be in academic discourse to indicate notability? Is it even the norm for such software to be published in conference proceedings or journals? If not, then what is the argument for such practice?/
 * Secondly, your assumption that what Google Scholar results are subject to formal review is utterly false. I see all sorts of poor-quality sources in its results. I am sure that a person with expertise in other disiplines can point out more (I myself am limited to very narror range of topics).
 * Thirdly, tutorials and how-tos published in reputable publicatins demonstrate that there is suffiecient interest in the software for people to go beyond mere documentation provided by the software developers, which is the only form of publication for most non-notable software. And I don't see how the existence of such sources means that we have to write a how-to guide. Do you think that all such sources are merely instructive? Have you never seen a tutorial describe background theory about the topic of instruction as nessecary prerequisites? I am not assuming that this is the case with Dev-C++, but I would prefer that sources be assessed instead of being lumped into stereotypes.
 * Thirdly, jargon is perjorative. And I see it get throw around to rally support against them "elitist experts". I am not insinuating that you are doing this, but differing definitions and perspectives means that I will never use such a term to describe technical vocabulary and become immediately suspicious of its users.
 * Regarding your example, I don't think that it is jargon anymore than stating that Windows 7 is an operating system. Integrated development environment is not a neologism, and it is not jargon in the sense that it is not a formal term suitable for publications such as journals. As for the remainder of the example, I am of the opinion that it is the same as the first sentence: objective description. How is the following jargon or problematic: "Dev-C++ can be used in combinatioin with Cyhwin orr any other GCC-based compiler." Is it not the same as this in purpose: "This car can be fuelled with any gas that meets or exceeds this standard."
 * Regarding your assertion that Dev-C++ has not been worked on recently, nor has it generated any recent mentions in the news, and therefore must certainly be non-notable, I think that WP:Notability is not temmpoary is relevant here. I can think of plenty of clearly notable topics that have not been covered recently in the news. So what? they are not topics that are covered in the news to begin with. My point is that you pick criteria appropriate for the topic.
 * Finally, I am still of no opinion about the notability of this topic. As I have said before, I am no expert on IDEs. It seems to me from Google Books results that this is not obscure software like most free software projects, but it isn't Visual Studio either. I think that people knowledgable on free software and/or C programming should comment. Regards, Rilak (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC).


 * I'm just going to go ahead and take this to AFD. Thanks for your comments everyone! Endofskull (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)