Talk:Java syntax
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Java syntax article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
From WP:RfD
- Java syntax → Java programming language -- I just switched it; it had been pointing to what's now Curly bracket programming language. I don't think anyone's likely ever to use this redirect. Quuxplusone 21:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- "Java syntax" gets about 60K web hits. I'd say "keep", lest someone start a new article. Noel (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Semantics and BNF grammar
Anybody reading this article could be forgiven for thinking that Java did not include any semantic requirements (ie, the article reads like everything is specified in the syntax).
This article could do with a major rewrite that separated out the lexical/syntax/semantic issues. And come on guys, an article on syntax that fails to list at least a few production from the BNF grammar :-O.
Come to think about it, the problem is not the content but the title. The title "A brief introduction to some Java features" is closer to what the text is about. Derek farn 15:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Java 5 features
This article does not cover Java annotations or generic/parameterized types. Mike Dillon 15:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Book References
Herb Schildt is widely regarded as being one of the worst technical authors around[1]. Should we really be referencing one of his books at the bottom of the article - especially since theres no shortage of other books on Java. 82.71.7.193 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Operator precedence needed
I don't have time at the moment, but the article should indicate the operator precedence and discuss operator precedence. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
why did somebody delete the chinese java example?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Java_syntax&diff=130736395&oldid=123256628 Booksonlysuc 01:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- My theory is that some overzealous editor saw the Chinese characters and decided to translate for us, without realizing they were intentional. I restored them. --Max Talk (add) 01:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
things needed
- Exception
- Thread object, Runnable interface and their methods
- synchronized block
- local variables and their scope
- Autoboxing
anything else? 220.146.142.210 11:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Wrapper types as "pass-by-reference"?
Aren't wrapper types immutable? If so, they cannot be used to pass by reference as the article says 201.21.71.226 (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Stubbing this pending rewrite
The recent AfD for this article came up as no consensus, but that was mostly due to the potential use of an article on this subject rather than anything which currently exists in it. I've taken the opportunity to remove the useless material pending a full rewrite from scratch, as its existence made that less likely; it was, of course, quickly reverted by anon complaining about it being "destroyed". if there's no better argument for restoring the cruft which has now been transwikied to a WikiBooks manual (where it belongs) then I'll remove it again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I support the stubbing suggestion based on the history and the result of the AfD. Wikipedia is not and all that. Give it a couple of more days and then redo it. If it is again summarily reverted w/o comment here, at least you'll clearly be in the right. Usrnme h8er (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've now restored the stubbed version, as there has been no response from any party wishing to keep the old version - one which was generally disliked in the AfD. This gives the article room to re-grow as a descriptive rather than prescriptive work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- i'm sorely disappointed. the previous page was useful reference despite whatever your claim is that it's what wikipedia isn't supposed to be. may as well delete half of the mathematics articles that i reference in the same manner as i did this page. way to make wikipedia less useful than it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.103.225 (talk)
- I've now restored the stubbed version, as there has been no response from any party wishing to keep the old version - one which was generally disliked in the AfD. This gives the article room to re-grow as a descriptive rather than prescriptive work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)