Talk:C++/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

paragraph regarding C++ Exception Handling was removed

After 16 years of the availability of C++ Exception Handling this page did not mention anything about it. I added a paragraph. My edit certainly reflected that this is still today a hotly contested & emotional subject for a majority of C++ programmers outside of boost or the C++ standard library. My edit was removed. I hope that somebody else will undo the removal or write some paragraph by himself about the same subject. This should certainly contain some mentioning about the phobia which still exists regarding this subject in the majority of people which make their money with C++. ExcessPhase (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That's great. Show your sources. And I continue to strongly recommend abandoning the hyperbolic term "phobia". Nobody on this planet has a clinically diagnosable phobia of exception handling. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Talks which exhibit such a phobia usually don't make it into the public, because these people are rightly ashamed of themselfs -- if not now, than in a couple of years. And that somebody questions my authority regarding this subject pisses me off. Gehabt Euch wohl!

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5426708/why-are-exceptions-so-rarely-used-in-c http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3490106/we-do-not-use-c-exceptions-whats-the-alternative-let-it-crash http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml#Exceptions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.73.228.23 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that "phobia" has a more restricted meaning in English than "phobie" has in German. You may wish to review the article Phobia.

As to questioning your authority, yes, that's a problem subject matter experts routinely have with Wikipedia that makes them unhappy engaging with it. The painful truth of the matter is, though, that Wikipedia's policy on verifiability means that your personal knowledge counts for nothing in and of itself; what matters is what you can source (though of course your personal knowledge helps you figure out what you can say that's verifiable). If you aren't willing to go to the effort of working from verifiable, reliable sources, though, I'm very much afraid you're likely to find your contributions continuing to be unwelcome.

The StackOverflow posts you link to are textbook examples of things that are not reliable sources and so not useful for verifiability purposes. The only way the Google Code policy document would demonstrate anything relevant is if you concluded by WP:SYNTHESIS that Google suffers from a phobia of exceptions, since all it says is that they don't use them. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments: Establish standards for version history tables in software articles

I'd like to introduce the Template:Version template to Wikipedia with the goal to establish one standard for version history tables (or lists). It simplifies creation of release histories, standardizes release stages and makes the content more accessible. Please comment on the template talk page (there already is some discussion). Thanks for your contribution. Jesus Presley (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)