Talk:Trampoline (computing)

The usenix article citation at the bottom is broken (http://people.debian.org/~aaronl/Usenix88-lexic.pdf). I'd actually really like to find this paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.101.44.136 (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah nevermind, I found it (http://web.pdx.edu/~hegbloom/download/Usenix88-lexic.pdf) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.101.44.136 (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Trampolines are also used in the MS Research technology--Detours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.196.240 (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

is this article about a real topic?
Trampoline is a great word and programmers love using it... but... i don't think there's any unifying theme between these usages. None of these individual uses really merits a page either. This is referenced by Continuation Passing Style, which is referring GCC-like trampolines. But there it's really a tiny implementation detail -- the use has been publicized a bit by the ffcall library, but it's still quite obscure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.209.53 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, the Jargon File gives a pretty nice definition; it's helpful to read the definition of "thunk" as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.209.53 (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the definition of thunk, referred in the article and mentioned above, I just followed the link - and was quite puzzled to go to a disambiguation page. So which version of thunk does this article actually refer to (I may be able to figure it out by reading all the thunk articles, but perhaps??? --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has many collaborators avid of glory and protagonism. That has imposed some stupid policies, which are not bad per se, but the wrong application by inexperience collaborators are ruining many topics.
 * In this case, trampoline is close related to the Continuation passing style, but that article has been fragmented, instead of being rewritten with a more concise style. But many wikipedians prefer to split long articles instead of improving it's structure.
 * CPS is not an easy topic, although it is neither the most obscure topic in the programming world. It has details to be well understood if a programmer wants to master this style. The actual article is not very clear. I agree that this article, trampoline, should be part of a better structured CPS article.
 * Those who use a unix like operating system, have filter called  which can be used to organize an article according to the dependency of concepts.
 * The concepts should be exposed in an order which makes more clear the subject to any reader.

Oh, seems to be at least one reference
I've only properly added a reference once, and am a bit rusty... The reference in question seems to be self-published however, thus doesn't count as WP:RS from my viewpoint. -- The reference in question is simply added as an external link. I might personally fix this later. --Kuzetsa (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up
This article was tagged to be split in August 2008 and soon after tagged because in addition to splitting to multiple articles, an expert and references wouldn't hurt. I have made some minor changes, and this is being copied to Wiktionry via Transwiki (so may take a while to copy). Beyond this, I don't know what to do with it, or even if it's a disambiguation page. What do other people think? Boleyn3 (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a dab page, so I'm going to remove the tag. There are no links to articles with the same name, and dab pages do not have references. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
I think this article deserves to be deleted and WP:SALTED. I am going to start a discussion for deletion at Articles for deletion/Trampoline (computers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Will someone rewrite it?
Is someone with technical knowledge going to rewrite this article? If not, then it should be deleted. Dial911 (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Outdated
The info regarding GCC is outdated and (now) incorrect. Although GCC used to utilize an executable stack to implement closures, these days it supports another strategy: "function descriptors". See https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Trampolines.html. This may be outside the scope of this article though. Elaifiknow (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)