107:
86:
55:
21:
290:- Honargohar's first name - seems to have written most of the article. And, as I wanted to know more about his Z++ as a result of seeing him plug it while making misleading and ill-founded claims about C++, I found I simply could not rely on the article that he himself had apparently mostly written. It really does reek of self-promotion.
187:
353:
inconsistency within Z++ language, or explain how you think Z++ is in competition with C++, rather than expressing your dislike. For your information, Z++ can link with C++ dynamic libraries for SOA. There is no competition between Z++ and any other language. But there is no reason not to provide a comparison, as seen suitable.
285:
I'm skeptical of the 1090 hits for "Z++ ZHMicro", as that's entirely consistent with
Honargohar actively promoting his Z++ and ZHMicro - although I should state that I haven't looked at them in detail. As it happens, the only reason I first came to this article was to find out whether or not his Z++
213:
The reason I've proposed deletion of this article is that it basically seems to be a case of the main author plugging his own language, Z++. While I haven't read the whole article, the introduction reeks of the pretention of self-promotion. I'll read the whole article if necessary, and look into it
344:
About the use of .h and namespace, your are making a big guess about Z++ without first trying to understand what Z++ is. You are wrong in guessing that Z++ is an extension of C++, the way C++ extends C by porting Simula classes. No, there is no chance of confusing Z++ files with C header files. The
348:
You are wrong in guessing that Z++ is in competition with C++. It is not, nor I care what C++ can or cannot do. However, in order to provide a perspective for illustrating ideas, one has to make references to other known implementations. C++ is such a minimal subset of Z++ that I can simply use C,
444:
To simply say that Z++ is a _version_ of C++, as it does here in
Knowledge (XXG), doesn't seem exactly kosher, when taking into account certain information that results from Googling. There is a seeming contradiction, or, at the least, possibility of confusion. Clarification of this point would
340:
Now, I learned about the Z++ page in
Knowledge (XXG) from a friend. I thought I could do a better job, so I spent time to learn Wiki's features and expand on the page. As about the Google search, I have been told about references to Z++, mostly in European forums etc. In some cases that I became
352:
Mr. Best, had your request for deletion not followed our discussion in the Google's C++ newsgroup, I would have assumed that you are sincere, and would have tried to clarify any confusion. You are simply doing this, and improperly using my last name for what happened there. Please indicate some
377:
One thing that might be worth elaborating is how derivation of namespaces works when the definition of a namespace is spread over several translation units (and the full definition might not be visible in any), assuming such a thing is possible in Z++. (C++
385:
One other request: Please don't abuse the .h extension. It's bad enough that C++ programs use it too often, but couldn't you use .zhh or something? It's not as though there's any chance of a Z++ header being of any use to a C programmer.
273:
Searching for "Z++ Lano" gives about 917 hits. Searching for "Z++ Honargohar" gives about 28, or just 4 when similar hits are dropped. Searching for "Z++ Lano
Honargohar" gives nothing. Searching for "Z++ ZHMicro" gives about 1090
299:
I'll nominate this article for deletion, as it's not at all clear that
Honargohar's Z++ is really notable, and does seem to be a clear case of Honargohar just plugging his own language. I will look into it further,
270:
article says, "Z++ programming language was initially implemented in 1993 as an extension of C++ for UNIX platforms. The design and implementation was done by Zorabi
Honargohar". They're different languages.
341:
interested, I had to use a translator (I was shown how to do that) so I could see what was being said about Z++. Unlike you, those folks had looked at the Z++ syntax chart and were discussing its features.
41:(Background note: There are two langauges, both called Z++; the original article on the old Z++ was overwritten in February 2006, and this was later proposed for AFD as non-notable promotion by author)
228:
22,000 ghits, most on the language, including major symposia. I put them in. Look first, and I don't think you'll send it to further process. Look at the comments below to see it taken seriously.
251:
For me, Google comes up with about 222,000 hits. This is hardly surprising, as "z++" is the sort of thing that occurs in a lot of code. Indeed, a quick look through the search results shows a
424:, and followed the same pattern. Indeed, like others I had made all keywords bold and someone took them out. I was just trying to provide a uniform look, rather than being different.
349:
Simula, ADA, Eiffel and APL in order to provide context for understanding the contributions of Z++ to software development. But then, C++ includes C and Simula, and is known to many.
165:
475:
155:
286:
was at all notable - only to find that the introduction appeared to have been written by
Honargohar himself (just from the style). Indeed, a certain
266:
paper that refers to Z++ as "an Object-Oriented
Extension to Z". That paper was written by one Kevin Lano. In contrast, the "Background" section of
31:
131:
470:
194:
114:
91:
480:
66:
199:
317:
I appreciate the distinctions you are making. If we do keep the article, it should obviously be edited to reflect them.
27:
406:
72:
337:
I would like to start with your inappropriate use of my last name, several times. Please follow traditions.
54:
127:
452:
130:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
448:
36:
Revert back to the version of the article covering the original Z++ language, dated 17 January 2006.
20:
399:
427:
356:
287:
309:
215:
345:
notion of namespace is quite extensive in Z++. Please read more carefully before commenting.
403:
214:
further if this proposal is disputed, but it looks to me like a safe bet for deletion.
464:
370:
C++ does allow for you to separate declaration and definition of namespaces, though
198:
prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the
106:
85:
402:, it's a bad enough job the article would be better off without any at all. --
410:
123:
319:
236:
230:
119:
421:
371:
226:
226,000 ghits, almost all on the first few pages on the language.
413:
382:
split namespace definitions over multipule translation units.)
456:
430:
359:
323:
312:
240:
218:
181:
48:
15:
259:
118:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
398:the code is in blue font? If that's supposed to be
192:This article is based on material taken from the
394:Is there any particular reason that essentially
420:I simply looked at other pages, for instance
8:
80:
52:
255:of "z++"s that are simply bits of code.
82:
140:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Computing
7:
195:Free On-line Dictionary of Computing
112:This article is within the scope of
71:It is of interest to the following
30:on 14 January 2007. The result of
14:
476:Low-importance Computing articles
372:Z++#Separation_of_implementation
185:
105:
84:
53:
19:
160:This article has been rated as
26:This article was nominated for
224:didnt you even search Google?
143:Template:WikiProject Computing
1:
471:Stub-Class Computing articles
234:04:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
134:and see a list of open tasks.
431:09:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
360:08:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
324:21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
313:21:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
241:05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
219:18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
457:14:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
497:
374:seems to imply otherwise.
166:project's importance scale
159:
100:
79:
202:, version 1.3 or later.
481:All Computing articles
128:information technology
61:This article is rated
334:Replying to Mr. Best.
258:The third hit is for
115:WikiProject Computing
65:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
262:, which refers to a
400:syntax highlighting
146:Computing articles
67:content assessment
366:A few comments...
209:Proposed Deletion
206:
205:
180:
179:
176:
175:
172:
171:
47:
46:
488:
189:
188:
182:
148:
147:
144:
141:
138:
109:
102:
101:
96:
88:
81:
64:
58:
57:
49:
23:
16:
496:
495:
491:
490:
489:
487:
486:
485:
461:
460:
442:
392:
368:
260:Z++ from FOLDOC
211:
186:
145:
142:
139:
136:
135:
94:
62:
12:
11:
5:
494:
492:
484:
483:
478:
473:
463:
462:
441:
438:
436:
434:
433:
425:
391:
388:
367:
364:
363:
362:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
335:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
304:
303:
302:
301:
294:
293:
292:
291:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
271:
256:
244:
243:
210:
207:
204:
203:
190:
178:
177:
174:
173:
170:
169:
162:Low-importance
158:
152:
151:
149:
132:the discussion
110:
98:
97:
95:Low‑importance
89:
77:
76:
70:
59:
45:
44:
39:
38:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
493:
482:
479:
477:
474:
472:
469:
468:
466:
459:
458:
454:
450:
446:
439:
437:
432:
429:
426:
423:
419:
418:
417:
415:
412:
408:
405:
401:
397:
389:
387:
383:
381:
375:
373:
365:
361:
358:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:
333:
332:
325:
322:
321:
316:
315:
314:
311:
308:
307:
306:
305:
298:
297:
296:
295:
289:
284:
283:
282:
281:
272:
269:
265:
261:
257:
254:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
242:
239:
238:
233:
232:
227:
223:
222:
221:
220:
217:
208:
201:
197:
196:
191:
184:
183:
167:
163:
157:
154:
153:
150:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
111:
108:
104:
103:
99:
93:
90:
87:
83:
78:
74:
68:
60:
56:
51:
50:
42:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
447:
443:
435:
395:
393:
384:
379:
376:
369:
318:
310:Simon G Best
267:
263:
252:
235:
229:
225:
216:Simon G Best
212:
193:
161:
113:
73:WikiProjects
40:
35:
449:Youtai8xian
445:only help.
288:User:Zorabi
465:Categories
407:(contribs)
390:Formatting
63:Stub-class
411:9 January
137:Computing
124:computing
120:computers
92:Computing
28:deletion
440:Comment
300:though.
164:on the
428:Zorabi
422:Eiffel
416:(GMT)
409:20:08
357:Zorabi
126:, and
69:scale.
404:Gwern
274:hits.
453:talk
414:2007
268:this
264:1990
200:GFDL
34:was
396:all
380:can
320:DGG
253:lot
237:DGG
231:DGG
156:Low
467::
455:)
122:,
451:(
168:.
75::
43:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
