Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Source-code compatibility

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Enigma^msg 05:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source-code compatibility

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term doesn't make sense. If I have to recompile code for a new machine, it is not compatible, it means a compiler exists. To me, this looks someone's WP:NEO / WP:OR, or possibly a non-notable marketing term that attempts to hide the fact that system "Y" requires a substantial migration effort in order to use legacy software from system "X". Paradoctor (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "I don't understand it" is not a good reason for nomination. Nor is then cruising other articles and removing [1][2][3][4][5] inbound links to this article. Particularly not when that involves a change from "is source-compatible (not binary compatible) " to "is not binary compatible", which shifts the whole implied meaning of a sentence from "quite compatible" to "not very compatible". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the terms source and binary compatibility are of long standing (e.g. from 2002) and clearly opposed definition. I do hope the deleted links will be restored promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term goes back to at least the 1970s, just from the mentions we already have, in relation to new generations of microprocessor.

I suspect that the term might go back as far as the 1950s, and Tony Brooker's very first uses of Autocode, this being one of the justifications for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly not WP:NEO or WP:OR as a few basic searches in GBooks and GScholar should have shown. Three cite books have been added. Sam Sailor 17:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.