Subject talk:C++ programming language

Subject C++ page
This page being done manually ignores all the benefits that were the whole point of moving to dynamic subject pages. Additionally, adding a new book such as Let Us GCC to Category:C++ programming language does not add it here, as someone familiar with the other subject pages might expect. And each book has a description; that's more than books on the bookshelves got, much less those on other subject pages (why are these special?). How much of the book duplication seen here is a result of forking or abandoning the quagmire that is C++ Programming? Should we convert all the other subject pages into manual listings with descriptions for each book? -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that bookshelves have been deprecated. I haven't done any special work there for years now...
 * As for the the manual versus dynamic subject pages, I do see a small benefit if people don't create and maintain their subject pages but I must state that personally I don't particularly like the new design. It should be up to the editors to add the relevant info, automation shouldn't be an end it itself, usability should prevail. In any case Let Us GCC is still an empty stub and examining it even if it evolves the structure will not be fit to stand alone (it will have to be merged to another work), it seems to be a collaborative effort to use Wikibooks to cooperatively update some external book source code (that source code may be useful elsewhere when they are finished).
 * Regarding the descriptions of the books they have IIRC been the work of each book editors and they are extremely relevant to demonstrate that there is no collision on each subject matter or presentation in that aspect it probably has been impacted by previous general discussion of the subject but not specific to the C++ Programming book. To my knowledge only the Understanding C++ stub was a direct result of divergences regarding the C++ Programming exiting structure, it was created by Darklama.
 * Only the last two books would be impossible to merge to the C++ Programming the scopes are extremely divergent, but I would expect any merging of the other books to receive strong opposition form their communities, for instance More C++ Idioms covers a very specific subset of the language, it has received several accolades, if IIRC even from the C++ language creator, even if possible the merge would reduce the usefulness of that work, the same can be stated to a lesser degree about Optimizing C++ in this case it could have been created as part of the C++ Programming but not at speed the editor created this work (amazing solo contribution), it would be impossible if he had to address the problems being created on the C++ Programming, in any case the book is self contained and mostly complete (if that can be stated about a Wikibook), the content is being somewhat duplicated by myself but I'm relating it to the rest of the book and will cover more modern features and out of the standard concepts (like OpenMP). So not really a collision but if and when the C++ Programming has the still pending issues resolved and evolves into a similar level of completion a merge could be discussed...
 * The C++ Programming book is still waiting for some admin to reverse changes made to the cover page (by Darklama against objection by myself) that reversal was approved C++ Programming/Conventions (last convention). --Panic (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge?
I think it would be cool if some of these books could be merged into a single book where it makes sense, such as including the content of More C++ Idioms into the subsection C++ Programming/Code/Design Patterns or wherever it might actually be appropriate. This would make it easier to refer a single source of content instead of fragmenting information and making it harder to share. Also it would pull what's left of the Authors/Communities together and make them stronger instead of reinforcing competition for referral. I'd appreciate the input of anyone else, Thanks Zenware (discuss • contribs) 03:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This probably will occur in the future for now there is still incomplete work pending in both works. More C++ Idioms is very subject specific and is nearer completion, it would hinder its usefulness to dilute it into the other work that still has much content missing. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 07:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)