Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Java and C++


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  08:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of Java and C++

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Although this article's been around for a while, I don't see it as encyclopedic. None of the cited sources explicitly contrast the two languages, so it's mostly original research to compare them beyond face value. In that respect, any meaningful comparison beyond a table would just be a special case of "pros/cons of garbage collection, native code vs bytecode..." which can be better dealt with at each feature's respective article. More generally, comparing two vastly different languages like this isn't Wikipedia's job. "Comparison of C and C++" would arguably make sense, for example, because they are closely related and the difference between them is important (some valid C is not C++, etc), but that's not the case here. Even if Java and C++ are both old, popular and object oriented, that's not a particularly compelling reason to dedicate an article to comparing them. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This should be a YouTube video, not an encyclopedic entry. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, some of the sources in the article do explicitly contrast the two languages. There are also many more sources which do the same.     So the comparison is notable.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for comparing things though, regardless of how comparable the two products are. Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not a buying guide. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What about Comparison of programming languages, Category:Programming language comparisons, and Category:Comparison of individual programming languages? SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly indecisive on what I think of these. On the first hand, those seem different from the one in this discussion. I'd say they are more encyclopedic list rather than guides like this one is. On the second hand however, they are still somewhat more of an answer to "what should I use?" versus an encyclopedia entry and I don't see any other use of those for anyone besides people looking for what they should use, and really only serve people outside of Wikipedia. I'd say I lean more towards deleting them all, because the only other comparisons on Wikipedia that I know of involve languages, like Portuguese vs Spanish and US English vs UK English. Waddles <b style="color:white">🗩</b> <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 23:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also Comparison of top chess players throughout history, Comparison of the AK-47 and M16, Comparison of web browsers, Comparison of American and Canadian football, Comparison of Macintosh models and many, many more. I think notable comparisons are pretty ubiquitous on Wikipedia. I agree though that this particular article requires improvement. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a reasonable position to take that Wikipedia is not for comparing things, but it would need a wider discussion than this for us to accept that principle. I find 780 pages in article space with "comparison of" in the title. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking over those articles, it seems many "comparison of" deletion discussions are contentious. There are definitely some notable comparisons, but I'm not sure (and I don't know of a guideline about this) what metric should be used to gauge whether a comparison deserves its own article. I daresay this topic is more notable than "Comparison of ALGOL 68 and C", but that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. With regards to the presented sources, most of the recent ones are comparing particular implementations in Java and C++—not the languages themselves. And anything published before, say, 2006, is pretty firmly outdated; this was before HotSpot really got good at optimization and much before C++11 came out, a version which transformed the modern language. Ovinus (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: comparison is quite informative and exhaustive. - Hatchens (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The motion (or lean-toward) to delete all comparative articles directly contradicts a long-standing precedent positing that some comparative articles do belong on Wikipedia, complete with their own page. The Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars article has withstood more than a couple separate VfDs, whereas a formerly existing "Differences Between Pokémon and Digimon" article was deleted. As Ovinus correctly asserts, the issue is dependent on a presently non-existent metric to dictate which comparisons are and are not notable. To begin considering such a metric, we should primarily consider a specific comparison's (1) general prevalence or logical connection, (2) historical or social significance, or (3) legislative relevance. In the case of the Trek/Wars article, its notability arises from the fact that the comparison spawned a sort of social phenomenon; likewise, the immensely pervasive Java/C++ comparisons hold academic and professional significance. As Java is directly influenced by C++, the comparison has historical significance, validating the older presented sources and lending to their encyclopedic (albeit not learning manual-made) relevance. There are serious issues in the article's structure and presentation, but these qualify editing, not deletion. Misandrism (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Summarizing several refutations of the OP's arguments, partially discussed above:


 * "Although this article's been around for a while, I don't see it as encyclopedic." --- This is a valid perspective but if true, it would require site-wide consensus and not just targeting this specific article


 * "None of the cited sources explicitly contrast the two languages, so it's mostly original research to compare them beyond face value." --- SailingInABathTub lists sources which do independently cover the comparison, and these should be added to the article


 * "comparing two vastly different languages" --- this part is just wrong IMO, C++ and Java are often considered directly adjacent and mentioned in the same sentence. They are the two mainstream languages most known for performance and OOP. It's true that for example, an article on "Comparison of Python and Haskell" or "Comparison of Pascal and Brainfuck" would be ridiculous, but that is not the case here.


 * The article does, however, need a better lead written. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

<p class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There has been some refutation to the keep arguments, it seems that the existence of sources that directly compare the two languages and the notability conferred from that have shown an argument to keep under WP:GNG; however, there is still a dispute as to how WP:WAX factors into all of this. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">snood</b>1205 01:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - while I have some sympathy for the WP:NOT and WP:SYNTH argument of the nom, the fact is, the editors have managed to put together a quality resource based on verifiable claims that do not have the kind of V/N issues that the SYNTH policy guards us against. The article is problematic, but deletion would not improve our offering as a reference resource and no reasonable ATD has been offered. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.