Talk:Plain old CLR object

Untitled
locale is incorrect for spanish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_old_CLR_object for english, but change //en. to //es. gives a 404 The es. URL also differs by case https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_Old_CLR_Object I can hack the preceding URL and replace es. with en., and that works. Ricka0 (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

wiki-police
Let's see how long this takes the wiki-police.. ^_^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.49.43 (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In my view the POCO & POJO names stem from POD. meaning plain old data in old C & C++ standards. POD being that which can be placed in a UNION, being simplistic memory copyable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.204.124.2 (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This should be in a section, right? Sam Tomato (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WTF PHP!?
Why is PHP mentioned here? It seems unrelated and irrelevant to anything else in the article. IMHO mentioning POJO makes sense, but POPO is not even close to being relevant (at least the way it's worded). BrainSlugs83 (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

C++ POD
C++ existed before Java. The term "Plain Old Data" (POD) type for C++ is more relevant than the Java term and C++ has a clear definition of POD. Bjarne Stroustrup designed C++. In his Technical Report on C++ Performance he states that the term POD is in the C++ standard at "§IS-1.8¶5" but I do not know how to state that in a more understandable format. He says that the standard describes a POD as being "a data type which is compatible with the equivalent data type in C in layout, initialization, and its ability to be copied with memcpy". I do not know how much of that should be added to the article but POD for C++ should be mentioned. I do not know which came first, POTS or POD. Sam Tomato (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)