D on Wikipedia [Was: Re: Setting the stack size]

[retard]

Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:07:19 +0200, so wrote:

>> I'd introduce the templates using code written in C++ and then list the
>> differences between C++ and D. After all, C++ and C++ TMP are widely
>> known. Even I have few books of them in my bookshelf and ps/pdf papers
>> discussing C++ TMP. There aren't any books or peer reviewed articles
>> about D's metaprogramming, right? Prioritizing D over C++ doesn't make
>> sense, the citations should emphasize notable relevant sources.
> 
> Someone in some third world country proved Goldbach's conjecture. Proof
> is there and accepted by everyone that understand what/how he does it.
> What are you going to do as the all mighty objective wikipedia?

Agreed, I don't like some of the Wikipedia's policies or editors, but 
this isn't the case now. D came a bit late to the party - many books were 
already written. The D's documentation doesn't discuss metaprogramming in 
general very extensively. Even when you just want to cite _something_, 
the C++ literature isn't that bad. The same information implemented in D 
is scattered around the net in newsgroup articles, dr dobbs journal, 
Bartosz's blog, TDPL, and so on. You don't have a single authoritative, 
peer reviewed source about D metaprogramming. There's more to it than 
langugage syntax and semantics.

> 
>> It clearly seems that both C++ and D communities think they invented
>> the term CTFE. In C++ the functions are "meta-functions" (templates)
>> [1], in D
>> "ordinary" functions. But the same shit comes with a different name in
>> other languages. It's essentially the same concept of metaprogramming.
>>
>> [1] http://www.amazon.com/Template-Metaprogramming-Concepts-Techniques-
>> Beyond/dp/0321227255
> 
> CTFE in essance meta-programming i agree, but comparing to others like
> comparing a tree to a forest.

Like I said, the articles would need a review. The particular page is 
already full of unrelated text.

> And no one here claimed D is the inventor of meta-programming.

Bearophile argued that the Wikipedia in general dismisses D harsly due to 
political reasons. I don't find this true. And like I said, it's not a 
competition. It's not a magazine where you can post your ads, it's an 
encyclopedia. More text about D isn't better.

I find this D language advocacy in Wikipedia disgusting - clearly, you 
should document notable features of D, but the main objective cannot be 
as much visibility as possible. Some of the related programming articles 
try to be generic, language agnostic. There's a language independent 
introduction and examples in various languages. And when there's an 
examples section, there should be a balance between the languages, e.g. 
one or two examples per language, not 1 example in other languages and 
100 in D, because D has so much more features. I hate this kind of 
desperate pushing. What the heck we are, a religious cult?

He (or someone else) previously complained that the language shootout guy 
doesn't include D in the test so he must he D because of some <XXX> 
reason. I think that if a language has real technical merits, this kind 
of worrying about the public image is silly. If you worry about D's 
notability, write more articles about D and more code in D.