Talk:Z++

Proposed Deletion

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 further if this proposal is disputed, but it looks to me like a safe bet for deletion. Simon G Best 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

didnt you even search Google? 226,000 ghits, almost all on the first few pages on the language. 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. DGG 04:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC) DGG 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• 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 lot of "z++"s that are simply bits of code.
• The third hit is for Z++ from FOLDOC, which refers to a 1990 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 this 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.
• 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 hits.

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++ 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 User:Zorabi - 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.

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, though.

Simon G Best 21:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the distinctions you are making. If we do keep the article, it should obviously be edited to reflect them.DGG 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Mr. Best.

I would like to start with your inappropriate use of my last name, several times. Please follow traditions.

Now, I learned about the Z++ page in Wikipedia 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 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.

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 notion of namespace is quite extensive in Z++. Please read more carefully before commenting.

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, 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.

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 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.

Zorabi 08:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A few comments...

C++ does allow for you to separate declaration and definition of namespaces, though Z++#Separation_of_implementation seems to imply otherwise.

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++ can split namespace definitions over multipule translation units.)

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.

Formatting

Is there any particular reason that essentially all the code is in blue font? If that's supposed to be syntax highlighting, it's a bad enough job the article would be better off without any at all. --Gwern (contribs) 20:08 9 January 2007 (GMT)

I simply looked at other pages, for instance Eiffel, 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.

Zorabi 09:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

To simply say that Z++ is a _version_ of C++, as it does here in Wikipedia, 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 only help.

Youtai8xian (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)