Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Computer science and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
WikiProject Computer science was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 7 November 2011. |
Draft: Brainchip
[edit]could someone review the Draft:Brainchip page? Birdmanoftech (talk), 13 January 2023 (UTC)
(programming) vs. (computer programming)
[edit]Is there any significance to articles distinguished with (programming) (e.g, Property (programming)), and those distinguished with (computer programming) (e.g, Method (computer programming))? Is there any consensus around a preferred distinguisher, such that I might bring articles into conformance? Thanks all! Tule-hog (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
[edit]
Hello, |
Requested move at Talk:Neuromorphic engineering#Requested move 24 August 2024
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Neuromorphic engineering#Requested move 24 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Should permalinks to Compiler Explorer be removed?
[edit]Several articles link to outputs of Compiler Explorer, which are in form https://godbolt.org/z/[0-9A-Za-z]+
. I think these do not meet the standards at WP:EL, especially the bare ones. It is an unaffiliated tool. They can also desynchronize with the code sample in the article. Also, could the uses of it to demonstrate a particular behavior or compilers be considered Wikipedia:OR? Naruyoko (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think the use of it as a reference for claims like "since some compilers hardcode symbols such as malloc and free" [1] is indeed OR. Also, its use as an inline link on statements like "the code below may be explored interactively here" [2] clearly violates WP:ELBODY. Its inclusion in Comparison of online source code playgrounds may be ok, but the other article-space links all look dubious to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we should create a template that just shows what is in the godbolt links ? Sohom (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- What is the point of creating a template to link to a site that we mostly should not link to? Or did you mean, a way to format assembly code without using that site at all? I thought we already had that and it would not solve the problems identified above. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I meant the latter. I think displaying the disassembled asm beside the compiled source code will/might make understanding our prose in certain computing topics easier especially for peeps without intricate knowledge of compilers. The spirit of WP:ELBODY is to prevent spam links, godbolt is the farthest thing from spam, it's a open-source educational resource/sandbox. If we can't directly link to their output (per the guidelines), creating a template to showcase the expected output (show the code and the asm code side-by-side) would be the next best thing. Sohom (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- What is the point of creating a template to link to a site that we mostly should not link to? Or did you mean, a way to format assembly code without using that site at all? I thought we already had that and it would not solve the problems identified above. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we should create a template that just shows what is in the godbolt links ? Sohom (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)