450:. The article is labeled as biased and not being notable because it was written by the creator of the language. So, who would be a better candidate to take on the presentation of a complex invention that automates distributed computing and mobile agents, among many other things? It will take a few months for a well-educated engineer to appreciate the automations of Z++ and how they reduce the pain of software development. And suddenly you could tell that it is of no value in a few minutes (if not seconds). In order to have an unbiased opinion, should you not know enough about the language so you can indicate some inconsistency, or anything. The reason the presented code looks bad to you is because you are not familiar with its linguistic constructs, and therefore not with their semantics. No one can take a look at something this complex and evaluate it on the fly, unless there is a bias. Finally, I wonder what bothers you from allowing others see for themselves. This is scientific work, not a product. If you think the article needs improvement to reflect that view, perhaps you can help by pointing to certain parts of it, and what you think should be done.
328:
A bit of
Googling revealed about 222,000 hits for "Z++", but many (even most) of them were for occurrances of "z++" in code (without having anything to do with Z++ the language). (Googling for "x++" gives about 1,510,000 hits; "y++" 1,300,000 hits; "n++" 1,960,000 hits; "i++" 15,800,000 hits, "j++"
264:
The first three cited are not peer-reviewed articles. Byte, however, is a respected professional magazine, now unfortunately defunct. There is thus evidence that the language exists, and that articles have been written about it. How significant ist is I cannot really say. Question--I tried to do a
208:
Author's
Response. Mr. Simon G. Best had a disagreement on a point about C++ exception handling, in Google C++ news group. It is a coincidence that I came to this page and saw the deletion notice. I think it is inappropriate for someone to attempt to create pain for someone for a difference of
463:
When it comes to the issue of notability, it's a matter of whether or not it's notable in a relevant sense for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If, as you seem to suggest, you're the only one in a position to write an encyclopedia article about it, it would seem that your Z++ is not actually
192:
Okay, that certainly makes sense - thanks for figuring it all out. I'm now of the opinion that it should, like you said, be reverted to the version about the Lano's Z++, without prejudice against a creation of a new article on this one if it becomes similarly notable.
166:
Z++ to the one in the article. The second reference is also to do with that other Z++. The third is about yet another Z++, again not the Z++ in the article. And the fourth is to something written by Kevin Lano, which would strongly suggest it has nothing to do with
265:
Google search. Quite apart for the 99% of other uses of the term, I can not tell if all the others refer to the same language--my results are on the article's talk page. (I was the one who asked it be deprodded & sent here for AfD to get some more information.)
378:
made some edits, and went on to make many more edits, treating the article as being about his own Z++. The anonymous user who made the first edit on the 6th of
February did so from 24.23.86.75, and subsequently made some more edits on later dates. That
46:
Revert to older version. Reverted version still accessible via page history, rather than deleted. No prejudice against its creation as a separate article ("Z++ (zhmicro version)") but will have to stand its own ground for notability if
148:
The reference section show independent, non-trivial coverage. The article asserts notability to a small extent, although it could do better in this regard. While it could use some inline refs, I don't think it should be deleted.
418:. Non-notable programming language given the appearance of notability by bad sources. Since the sources were added since Zorabi last edited, I'll assume a good faith mistake, but I still see no basis for keeping the article. —
247:
If your Z++ language is notable, please do provide some independent, verifiable evidence of it. My nomination for deletion really isn't out of spite, or anything like that. It's simply for the reasons given.
329:
4,630,000 hits, and "k++" 3,840,000 hits.) As mentioned on the article's talk page (where some other Google results are given), some of the hits are to do with a 1990 paper by one Kevin Lano on
464:(sufficiently) notable in a relevant sense for inclusion here. Also, Knowledge (XXG) isn't for the publication of original research (but there might be another Wikimedia project that
488:
chance that the
Knowledge (XXG) page will be maintained. The zhmicro Z++ website does not mention existing customers and neither has a public forum and nobody visits Google newsgroup
126:
171:'s Z++. The Byte review is of a book by Kevin Lano and Howard Haughton, so, again, it's probably to do with that other Z++, not the Z++ of the article. So, it would seem that
298:
but I've now found that the article was originally about one of the other Z++ languages. I'm now in favour of reverting back to how it was before the stuff about
226:
325:
was the primary author, as did a quick look through the article history. I was left feeling quite unable to rely on the article for an impartial view of Z++.
383:
have all been to the Z++ article. From the style of that anonymous editor's contributions, it's clear to me that that anonymous editor is almost certainly
333:
Z++, based on a language called Z. I also note that some of the references at the bottom of the article seem to be to do with that other Z++, rather than
222:
I'm not " to create pain". Actually, I first came to the Z++ article in the hope of getting an impartial view of your Z++ language. Yes, it followed:-
321:. It really came across as a case of the author promoting his own language. A quick scroll through the article reinforced my impression that
484:. The general rule for notability of programming languages should be that they are actively used by someone else than the creator. This gives
305:
I first came to the Z++ article because: I wanted to get some idea of the notability of Z++; and I wanted to learn a little bit more about it
162:
The first reference in the reference section is to a 1990 paper, "Z++, an Object-Oriented
Extension to Z", by one Kevin Lano. It's about a
17:
380:
352:'s Z++ is notable, and I don't feel able to rely on the article as an impartial, neutral point-of-view article on his Z++ language.
302:'s Z++ was introduced. See below for more on this. Anyway, here were my reasons for nominating this article for deletion:-
510:
36:
99:
94:
509:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
103:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
280:
194:
150:
86:
209:
viewpoint in an entirely different context. Perhaps someone with authority should speak with Mr. Best.
489:
492:
435:
419:
495:
472:
454:
438:
422:
406:
283:
271:
252:
213:
197:
187:
153:
137:
53:
451:
399:
388:
384:
375:
371:
367:
360:
349:
338:
334:
322:
314:
310:
299:
210:
168:
370:'s Z++). Then, on the 6th February 2006, an anonymous editor added "A brief intoduction" about
469:
403:
313:. But what I found, when I read the introduction, was that it seemed to have been written by
249:
184:
134:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
491:. Removing the text now does not preclude possible recreation of the article in the future.
133:
It seems that the main author is just plugging his own, non-notable programming language.
363:'s Z++. However, the article was still about the Z++ that Lano wrote his 1990 paper on (
317:
himself. I could tell it just from the style, having read some of the stuff on his
356:
120:
398:
I am therefore now in favour of reverting the article back to how it was before
90:
374:'s Z++, as if that was what the Z++ the article was about. That same day,
235:
reading your seemingly Z++-plugging document that your blog post was about;
267:
50:
337:'s Z++. Although it was only some quick Googling, it didn't look like
82:
74:
503:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
355:
Now, the article history shows that, on the 17th
January 2006,
232:
reading your blog post referred to in your newsgroup message;
318:
239:
227:
your message posted to the Usenet newsgroup comp.lang.c++
116:
112:
108:
63:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
309:worrying about possible bias from Z++'s creator,
513:). No further edits should be made to this page.
359:edited the article and added a brief mention of
348:Basically, I'm yet to see anything to show that
62:Comment and suggestions also left for author's,
242:to find out a bit more about your Z++ language.
8:
279:self-promotion, no evidence of notability.
391:seems to have 'hijacked' an article about
294:I'm the one who nominated this article,
434:to pre-Zorabi version per submitter. —
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
395:Z++ in order to promote his own Z++.
482:Delete and recreate the old version
175:of those references are to do with
24:
381:anonymous editor's contributions
341:'s Z++ was particularly notable.
468:suitable for your Z++ stuff).
1:
496:11:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
473:20:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
455:06:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
439:19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
423:02:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
407:18:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
284:19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
272:06:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
253:20:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
214:03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
198:20:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
188:20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
154:01:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
138:21:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
54:14:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
530:
387:himself. In other words:
183:the Z++ of the article.
506:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
238:and then visiting your
281:Wile E. Heresiarch
521:
508:
402:'hijacked' it.
319:ZH Micro website
240:ZH Micro website
124:
106:
67:
34:
529:
528:
524:
523:
522:
520:
519:
518:
517:
511:deletion review
504:
493:Pavel Vozenilek
432:Keep but revert
296:and here's why.
292:Keep but Revert
97:
81:
78:
61:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
527:
525:
516:
515:
499:
498:
478:
477:
476:
475:
458:
457:
444:
443:
442:
441:
436:David Eppstein
426:
425:
420:David Eppstein
410:
409:
396:
353:
345:
344:
343:
342:
326:
286:
274:
258:
257:
256:
255:
245:
244:
243:
236:
233:
230:
217:
216:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
157:
156:
131:
130:
77:
72:
71:
70:
69:
68:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
526:
514:
512:
507:
501:
500:
497:
494:
490:
487:
483:
480:
479:
474:
471:
467:
462:
461:
460:
459:
456:
453:
449:
446:
445:
440:
437:
433:
430:
429:
428:
427:
424:
421:
417:
416:
412:
411:
408:
405:
401:
397:
394:
390:
386:
382:
377:
373:
369:
366:
362:
358:
354:
351:
347:
346:
340:
336:
332:
327:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
303:
301:
297:
293:
291:
287:
285:
282:
278:
275:
273:
270:
269:
263:
260:
259:
254:
251:
246:
241:
237:
234:
231:
228:
224:
223:
221:
220:
219:
218:
215:
212:
207:
206:
199:
196:
191:
190:
189:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
165:
161:
160:
159:
158:
155:
152:
147:
146:
142:
141:
140:
139:
136:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
65:
60:
59:
58:
57:
56:
55:
52:
48:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
505:
502:
485:
481:
470:Simon G Best
465:
447:
431:
414:
413:
404:Simon G Best
392:
364:
357:User:Jpbowen
330:
306:
295:
289:
288:
276:
266:
261:
250:Simon G Best
185:Simon G Best
180:
176:
172:
163:
144:
143:
135:Simon G Best
132:
45:
43:
31:
28:
164:different
225:reading
195:Picaroon
151:Picaroon
127:View log
448:Comment
393:another
331:another
307:without
262:comment
100:protect
95:history
452:Zorabi
415:Delete
400:Zorabi
389:Zorabi
385:Zorabi
376:Zorabi
372:Zorabi
368:Zorabi
361:Zorabi
350:Zorabi
339:Zorabi
335:Zorabi
323:Zorabi
315:Zorabi
311:Zorabi
300:Zorabi
290:Delete
277:Delete
211:Zorabi
179:Z++s,
169:Zorabi
104:delete
177:other
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
486:some
145:Keep
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
64:here
365:not
268:DGG
181:not
173:all
125:- (
83:Z++
75:Z++
51:FT2
47:so.
466:is
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
66:.
49:.
229:;
129:)
123:)
85:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.