User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2016/6

Sunday June 5: Women in Jewish History Edit-a-thon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

[Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles] DataXoom -- Hoping to write the article!
Hi Timotheus Canens!

As a kind of summer project of mine, I was hoping to create a Wikipedia page in order to bolster my research skills for college. I was wondering if I could revert your changes with the deletion of DataXoom? I heard about the company during the school semester, and I feel like with the articles that I've found on the company, I can now construct the beginnings of a pretty reputable page. Thank you so much!

Extra info (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to recreate it if it meets WP:CORP. T. Canens (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of C++
Hello Timotheus,

I would like question the changes that you made to the article "Criticism of C++". I'm not really sure where to begin here. I'm a team leader in a influential company for embedded software using C/C++. The description of the problems you removed are problems that exists in real life. For example: I personally like the auto keyword and use it every day. It is however definitely a source of problems with a good source to LLVM.

Slow compile times: You removed a reference to a "random blog post". This is a reference to Rob Pike, where these problems directly influenced his decisions to develop a new programming language.

Heap allocations in containers. You removed the example as a "bogus example" although Bjarne Stroustrup says in the reference that he writes just like this, not using reserve. I'm totally baffled by your edits here.

Iterators: You need a source making exactly the same criticism? Must I start a blog just to use myself as a source here? It would be easier to google "iterator invalidations" and find a source, but you instead removed to whole text. The same thing in the part about exceptions and C99 features.

Lacking posix support: We could also use the fact that it is implemented in Boost as proof that is is needed in the industry. The spoof interview is merely mirroring the fact that people are annoyed by this in real life.

Verbose assembly: Should the use of the g++ -S flag really be considered as "research"? Looking out of the window should probably also be classified as research in that case.

This list just goes on. (However you are right about locale. I consider it a wrapper, but a wrapper is still a new library. Thanks for the edit)

I would like to return to the version from 30 May, and there all contributors can search for sources where they are considered lacking, or we can remove/change things from there. How you however just threw so much out of the window is demoralizing and disrespectful to all who have contributed. I could personally retreat to the German or Swedish Wikipedia and hope that they have other rules, but it would be nicer just to make a good article together. The links should also mirror the fact that criticism exists. They shouldn't need to be objective or even fair. I don't understand the deletions here ether. Wikipedia sure has a bitter taste right now.

EDIT: Interesting fact from google: The C++ community seems much more relaxed about the article, and that is also how I know coworkers favoring C++, which especially liked the assembly part.

https://www.facebook.com/MeetingCpp/posts/887677298024599

Rincewind82 (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles should reflect significant viewpoints published in reliable sources (See WP:V, WP:CRIT, WP:RS). Blogs and other self-published things are generally not reliable sources (WP:SPS). I'll restore the Rob Pike cite for now, since he arguably falls in the "established expert" exception, though there's probably a better cite for the particular proposition (large C++ projects taking forever to compile). While the output of g++ -S when fed with a particular piece of program is arguably within the spirit of WP:CALC, that this is the correct way to measure code bloat is not. T. Canens (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Timotheus,

now you are making me really confused. From the article code bloat "Thus, while code bloat generally refers to source code size (as produced by the programmer), it can be used to refer instead to the generated code size or even the binary file size.".

You are instead saying that looking at the binary size and the generated code is "not" an acceptable way to do it? Am I understanding you right here? You seem to be contradicting the code bloat article. Or am I misunderstanding you?

How about the other points? If sources are missing, isn't the customary way to put a warning on the article, and after a while start to remove unfounded material? I have the impression that you have reversed that process; you removed the material, and in the end you put up a warning that sources are missing? Should you not give the contributors some time to find adequate sources? Isn't the Talk section of the article also there to give suggestions about such things? Rincewind82 (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You wrote a comparison between assembly output on two different toy programs you wrote, compiled using settings you selected, in order to prove code bloat. That's like the definition of original research - "I did this experiment and it showed X". Whether unsourced content is removed or just tagged is at editorial discretion and depend on the context. I retained the text if I'm fairly confident a reliable source can be found for something. Feel free to restore things that you can actually find a reliable source for. T. Canens (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timotheus,

Well, all small programs are toy programs. What other compile flags would you suggest? Less optimization? Be my guest to replace std::vector with other STL-classes if you think I'm biased here. The code bloat will remain the same. And such a trivial example still counts as research?

If we start with the iterators. Would this source be more acceptable? http://www.angelikalanger.com/Conferences/Slides/CppInvalidIterators-DevConnections-2002.pdf

EDIT:

Scott Meyers would be even better with his book Effective STL. There he writes on page 50:

"Given all that allocation, deallocation, copying, and destruction. It should not stun you to learn that these steps can be expensive. Naturally, you don't want to perform them any more frequently than you have to. If that doesn't strike you as natural, perhaps it will when you consider that each time these steps occur, all iterators, pointers, and references into the vector or string are invalidated. That means that the simple act of inserting an element into a vector or string may also require updating other data structures that use iterators, pointers, or references into the vector or string being expanded."

This was exactly what I was demonstrating in my example with the iterators. Can I put the iterator example back with these two sources? Would it be ok for you?

Rincewind82 (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The point of WP:OR is that assertions ("C++ causes code bloat") need to be grounded in reliable published sources, not the editor's own experiments and analysis of the results thereof, regardless of how well said experiments are designed and performed, so I'll decline your invitation to tinker with it. I'm OK with the iterator example with these sources, esp. ESTL. T. Canens (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Can we also use the exception code again with this source. It is from Item 11 from Scott Meyers book More effective C++. His example uses a class named "session" where I have used a simplified class named "connection" instead:

"There are two situations in which a destructor is called. The first is when an object is destroyed under "normal" conditions, e.g., when it goes out of scope or is explicitly deleted. The second is when an object is destroyed by the exception-handling mechanism during the stack-unwinding part of exception propagation... That being the case, an exception may or may not be active when a destructor is invoked. Regrettably, there is no way to distinguish between these conditions from inside a destructor. As a result, you must write your destructors under the conservative assumption that an exception is active, because if control leaves a destructor due to an exception while another exception is active, C++ calls the terminate function. That function does just what its name suggests: it terminates execution of your program. Furthermore, it terminates it immediately; not even local objects are destroyed" Rincewind82 (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm seeing a criticism in there w/r/t "terminate if two exceptions in flight". The "Regrettably" applies to "there is no way to distinguish between these conditions from inside a destructor" (which also will likely no longer be true with the upcoming revision). Should be usable with a change to the prose though. T. Canens (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, can I try to rephrase the exception part with the book as a source later? I appreciate your help and suggestions on these things. I will read through the articles you mentioned earlier about policies and rules etc. I had no idea that books were higher valued than online sources. I thought that online sources would be more convenient to verify for the admins; not everyone can be expected to have Scott Meyers in the bookshelf. Rincewind82 (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not "book vs online" - a peer-reviewed online-only academic journal beats a self-published book any day. But blog posts, personal websites, etc., typically are not considered reliable. T. Canens (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

June 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

About the redirection of the article "Wang Junkai"
Hi Timotheus, it seems that you redirected the article "Wang Junkai" to "TFBOYS". Could you please kindly let me know why we can not build "Wang Junkai" as an independent article in English Wiki? Actually we built his articles in Chinese, Japanese, Korean Wiki with the same content without any problems, so I started to feel a lit bit confused now. I will appreciate if you could kindly further explain which part of the content you think is not qualified, so we can improve that to met the criteria of English Wiki. And I think delete the whole article might is not the best way to solve the problem, as we all devote a lot of time to write and translate the article ( we are all not native english speaker), to translate and verify every single news link of the article. And what we wrote are fully supported by relevant news from qualified Chinese media. Thanks and looking forward for your reply. From: Xi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangjunkaigs (talk • contribs) 20:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSICBIO: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. T. Canens (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Wednesday June 29: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Articles for deletion/Harry Rosman
It looks like there was a clear consensus to merge here. Redirect is a different outcome. I'm not going to bother contest this and have instead put my energy into doing the merge myself; there's not much chance of anyone else doing it with no merge banners and the material buried in the redirect's history. ~Kvng (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jon Luvelli
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jon Luvelli. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnie Park (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you User:Donnie_Park. Hi User:Timotheus_Canens, I would like to ask if you could please turn the Jon Luvelli article into a WP:USERFY or copy the article to my user pages so I can continue to build the article as new content becomes available? I've been doing a lot of research on this topic and after his recent media coverage (last Wednesday), in a addition to my familiarity with the industry, I know that he is respected within the art world and becoming less reclusive which in turn is resulting in new media coverage. Thank you. MarPatton (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say User:MarPatton/Jon Luvelli. Donnie Park (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. T. Canens (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Timotheus_Canens and User:Donnie_Park! MarPatton (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)