Talk:C++ Programming/Archive 5

Request for Feedback, Preprocessing Updates
I've recently done significant refactoring and writing of additional material on the C++ Programming/Preprocessor section of this book, partly in response to a TODO note left by an anonymous contributor. Feedback is welcomed. -- James Dennett 19:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

TOC1, TOC2, Editors TOC
Can anyone explain in 1000 words or less why there are three different main navigation pages for this book? In what way do readers or contributors benefit? -- xixtas talk 21:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * TOC1 and TOC2 were the result of differences in opinion, on how the chapters should be organized for reading, in which the only compromise that could be reached was to allow more than one way to exist, where readers could pick. Editors TOC was the result of bold action to present a cover page for readers and writers to pick which one to use, along with things that need work or people would like to see added, and links for print versions of all the chapters in the two currently presented reading orders, until it was moved yesterday to Editors TOC.
 * This book has a history of having different navigation methods. In the past there existed navigation involving a table of content sidebar with the contents to the left or right of it and one involving table of contents top bar with the contents underneath it. Which eventually was deleted due to nobody maintaining it and agreement to delete it. The only benefits I can see is choice and reuse without actually much duplication. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 22:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement above is partially correct, TOC1 was the original structure "I" and in that I must be clear that without particular objection, only on some content that Paddu objected and that lead to the so called "fork". (I say this for historical reference and because it is true).
 * Most references inside the various chapters/pages are structured or I actively worked to and intended them to be so, to provide some structure and a logic sequence to the text (I admit that there can be other preferences), the 3 navigation schemes that existed came also from the book merge, I didn't object to their creation and use on the book but they didn't perform any order change to the pages/chapters and were abandoned (one of the conditions I asked to the implementor was that I had not to maintain them, as with TOC2). They were removed as a request for Darklama and without opposition by me.
 * I don't object to any navigation scheme that can bypassed to provide a monolithic view (I and several users seem to also like to be able to see the book on that way, for posts I saw here and there, It is a book convention to have that setup), the Editor's TOC (I named it so) as it didn't provide a global view of the book and was mostly useful (and is a great idea) to editors but broke the default navigation scheme provided by the use of the page name convention ("/") and its substitution was indeed contested by me actively, in particular to the removal of the link to the authors page that I see as a necessity on the book cover/title page. --Panic 22:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the cover page should contain a link to the author's page, I agree with that. What else? Obviously what is an appropriate index is contested, but there should be at least some general index of content on the front page to serve readers. Speaking about books generally and not this book in particular, it seems to me that the front page should be directed at readers and perhaps a secondary portal page could be created for authors because everyone first experiences the book as a reader. Or am I way off base here? -- xixtas talk 23:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That was my intention, I don't even object to a change on the structure (but I would like to be involved and defend my point and in this case "my own work", I would not attempt to intrude in a similar discussion on another book, I would at most comment as a reader) a structure is the core of a work, all that is added is created above it, I don't object in having several structures (since wikis are virtual spaces and that makes it possible), but if the scope is to change then we must indeed consider a solution that can even result in a fork (that is still an open discussion), but I don't think this is the case here.
 * I think this is the result of Darklama being to much bold on the changes without listening to my objection, there were indeed action that have gone against some conventions of the book and resulted in deletion of pages, content and a corruption on the history logs in particular to the page C++ Programming/Programming Basics that is a result of merging 3 other pages that were deleted.( this was verified by other Administrator like Whiteknigh and there is still a comment on the last posts of this thread User_talk:Robert_Horning).  --Panic 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Different books do different things: Some use the front page for just a cover image with a link to the table of contents. Political Economy, Social and Cultural Foundations of American Education, Non-nerds Guide to Computers, FontLab, etc. Which is probably what we need, with a link to all three "table of contents". --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 00:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So if we created a cover page with a cover graphic, links to the two alternate TOC's, a link to the editors (which is probably better named "contributors") portal, a link authors page and the charter would everyone be happy with that?
 * Can we come up with more descriptive names for the two TOC's so the surfer knows what is coming? Is one "exhaustive" and the other "quick start" is one "inclusive" and the other "selective"? I don't know, I'm just asking the question. The terminology TOC 1 and TOC 2 seems a little unfriendly to the causal surfer. It would be better if it actually described what the surfer would find if they followed the link.
 * Can we try not to bring up old arguments and instead find commonality moving forward? Nothing we say here is going to change the past. -- xixtas talk 04:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

That is not so easy (and that is why it wasn't done in the first place besides changes to the content), it will continue to break the navigation scheme used by the page names the root must always be a index of all the content. It is possible to add a different root but not a bifurcation Go A or Go B. BOOKCOVER <-> BOOKTOC <-> BOOKCHAPTER <-> BOOKPAGE/SECTION (how can there be a path selection there ?) As for the names I don't have a clue, TOC stands for table of content or index as Darklamas was next, probably calling TOC2 Alternative Index is a good definition but the problems don't end there, who will maintain 3+ TOCs, and if anyone offered to create yet another or several? And who will check for divergences and collisions on the content (references to pages or chapter names, content out of order because in a TOC subject A goes before B and in the other A is after B etc... and this only in 2 distinct structures) Xixtas if I understand what you are stating, is that history has no relevance, and if it's so, I strongly disagree with that assessment. Have you created or contributed heavily to any book on Wikibooks, please state the name, I have a urge to create a new TOC there, or just start reorganizing the hell out of it (and I can probably find 1001 ways to justify the changes) :), lol see the logic? lol it would be very, very, funny if anyone attempted that for instance on the Ada book. --Panic 05:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have contributed to many books on Wikibooks. You can check my edit logs to find out which ones.
 * I'm sure you can think of better solutions than I to all those concerns if you try in good faith. These do not seem like insurmountable problems to me. You seem to be asserting a right of editorial control here.
 * Perhaps you would like to make an alternate proposal taking into account the concerns of other contributors? -- xixtas talk 13:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was giving you an example, not proposing to really change a book to prove the point. The point is that you think it is fine if a new contributor to change the structure of books without seeking consensus with the people working on it.
 * I said it isn't easy and I don't even see solution to some of the problems, and it would involve lots of work to maintain, I was not discarding a solution by compromise as I said I have no problem with different structures.
 * I really can't think on solve all solution. Darklama is the creator of the multiple structure, he has gone from a proposal to a partial implementation ignoring objections, he is the one that has to find and propose solutions.(a discussion of this same points is on the book proposals, I have done what I could and attempted to explain the problems with it)  --Panic 15:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "...you think it is fine if a new contributor to change the structure of books without seeking consensus..." I do not recall saying this. Please do not put words in my mouth that I did not say. Besides, what I do or do not think is immaterial. I'm just trying to help the contributors to this book work through what seems like a serious and dysfunctional disagreement.
 * Perhaps you can explain to me why you believe that "it will continue to break the navigation scheme used by the page names the root must always be a index of all the content." In what specific way would the navigation scheme be broken if the TOC was moved to a subpage like Book Name/Table of Contents? I do not understand.
 * Divergences and collisions of content can be handled by avoiding clumsy linear references and common sense ordering of indexes. As to who maintains the indexes, as with everything else on the wiki, those who are interested in doing so will do it.
 * "...he is the one that has to find and propose solutions." I disagree. I think you should work together to find mutually acceptable solutions. Each needs to identify areas of agreement and concern and each needs to participate in the process of proposing and evaluating potential solutions. I encourage you to find middle ground. -- xixtas talk 01:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, but then what was you referring to "try not to bring up old arguments" ?, today only exist because of yesterday, it is that sequence of events that brings linearity and logic, if we deny the past what meaning has the present. By arguments I understand facts or points of divergence, that until resolved must be addressed, ignoring them wont do and what you (and others) think and do is very relevant, at least to me, how else could I interact with you ?
 * The navigation scheme only supports movements forward and backward, a cover pages as Darklama indicated has no problem in being inserted on the front but how do you implement a bifurcation (or even 3 TOCs) if a user choses a chapter and wants to get to the list of chapters how does he work it out, it will have to remember at least what TOC he selected to get to the proper index, imagine this repeated 3 or 4 times, that is really non intuitive and so breaks it.
 * Can you give me an example on that "Divergences and collisions of content can be handled by avoiding clumsy linear references" this works on the Wiki env but not in a single page or in the printed version. (changing these option can't be part of a BeBold action).
 * I have helped him as much as I can, I gave him the freedom to implement all he wished until it infringes on my own freedoms, some things I like, some I don't but can live with it, some I object and state so, but this is voluntary I didn't sign anything that makes me work toward a single user vision, I volunteered to collaborate with any Wikibookian that doesn't make it an obligation. This it is like someone asking you to help him paint the moon blue and you state that it will be impossible but see if using some glasses with blue colored lenses will help, if he isn't satisfied what can you do.
 * I have identified areas of agreement and concern and have actively participated in the process of proposing and evaluating potential solutions, do you have any solution that resolves any of the concerns I stated so far? This can be basically summarized to an edit dispute and reduced to single line of text. (Most other books would even object in having several TOCs) --Panic 02:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am trying to get you to focus on the way forward, not on the road already traveled. You read far too much subtext into my comments that is not intended. I did not ask you not to dwell on the past because I disagreed with what you said, I asked you because I didn't want you to dwell on the past. I didn't bring this up because I didn't like the original TOC, I brought it up because I thought it should be discussed.
 * Thank you for explaining the problem with return navigation. To me that's an even better reason to give the tables of contents meaningful labels. I don't understand why darklama wanted to create an alternate TOC, it does seem to cause a lot of challenges.
 * Every wikibook is a collaborative project. This is an obligation that we all have, to work with others whether we signed anything or not. Every time you click submit you agree to "If you don't want your writing..."
 * Multiple printed versions are possible. By clumsy linear references I meant "In the previous chapter..." I agree that having multiple TOCs is undesirable, but here we are. Multiple TOCs already exist. I'm just trying to find a way to make them both work.
 * I have created a cover graphic for this book if you would like to use it C++ Book Cover. -- xixtas talk 04:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

I am focused in resolving the issues, but if Darklama doesn't maintain the TOC it will be a question of time to make this issue irrelevant, and I'm still against the logic of making changes off this nature on a very active book, knowing that it was not agreed upon. (not because of this book, but changes of this kind should not be subject to BeBold action it is almost as chattering to a book as a merge of significant content) When I asked you to reposition TOC1 in its original position was based on that fact, because it was there and was removed on a unilateral decission in express contradiction of what I and him had talked about (it was indeed waiting a viable solution). I don't agree with the wording obligation in "obligation that we all have, to work with others" there are various levels of collaboration and collaboration doesn't make it an obligation. An making others wishes came to fruition is way beyond collaboration. You haven't understood the problem completely :) if we add a cover pages (and considering only that) we must move all pages for instance coverpage <-> toc (on root) <-> some other page (on root) if you click on the default navigation button you will go to the coverpage not the toc as you need to select another page/chapter. To understand the problem enter the book as a reader and start using toc2, select a page and examine the navigation options, go back to the same toc2 and select another page, and you will see the problem. As for the image it is cool (what city is it?) but doesn't have nothing to do with the subject (in that the actual one also doesn't but at least it is smaller (and in file size as well), the one that exist now was enforced by the merging administrator (the merging of the books was unlawful), the original cover page is still on the book for further discussion and waiting a proposal to restore the books name (see content discussion page) one of the first posts. You should add your creation to that discussion. A full explanation is given about the one I created. --Panic 04:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's the rainbow bridge in Tokyo, Japan. Has nothing to do with the subject, huh? I think a suspension bridge is actually a pretty good visual metaphor for computer programming topics generally. It has the curve of the bridge line representing the C and the two towers crossed by the deck representing the two pluses. My visual work is one place where I do go for subtext. The image can easily be resized. If the cover was to be professionally printed it would need to be at least that high a resolution. You can slag on me about a lot of things, but don't slag my art. ;P Whether you choose to use it or not doesn't really matter to me. It's not my book. -- xixtas talk 05:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol add it here Talk:Programming:C_plus_plus/Cover_Image... (Btw do you mind moving this discussion to the content discussion page) --Panic 10:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Book merge
Original discussion of move is at Talk:C++ Programming/Content. --Panic 22:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Inheritance, Polymorphism
Can anyone explain why there need to be two different modules on inheritance and two different modules on polymorphism in this book? -- xixtas talk 13:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Results of the restructuring of Darklama. Darklama advanced the concept of named structure to support even better the page names navigation scheme, specific sections were aggregated (see class / stl /api ), works ok and was an improvement to the navigation. The specific pages were restructured not only to accommodate to that but also due to the extensive changes of the text and order. I'm saving the original pages to state only the concept and class/xpto to the applications of it (like a page to state what is a plug and another to show how to install a plug on a wall), and as it seems there is duplication with the page Darklama created merging other 3 pages (the one with history logs problems), but that one will require very careful work to see what was done there. --Panic 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to have only one section which starts from basic and advances gradually. Wish we could come up with a bible kind of book. Jayaram Ganapathy


 * That was how it was structured in the beginning of the book (on the introduction to programming paradigms) but that information was reduced (some of the historic part was removed) and there is a problem for a single part that addresses it all, that is a bit difficult as several concepts have a general definition but implications in several parts of the language, take a look for instance on the Editor's ToC at the memory management and see if you can merge it properly with the book (it's a hard task to make the book not only usable to for people that only will use it for consultation and people that like to read a book from cover to cover), I personalty prefer the first concept for technical books but I have not imposed that view on my edits if you have a better solution give it a try with that page. --Panic 16:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What I would suggest is to add a chapter before inheritance with title resource management. There we have to discuss everything related to object creation including the usage of placement new, delete[], auto pointers, smart pointers etc. Before knowing OOPS a person should know memory management in C++. Then only he will be able to understand properly virtual functions, multiple inheritance with a common ancestor etc... Also I would say add one error management in C++ before we dive into OOPS. Once these are done, discuss inheritance. At this point a reader will be able to understand descent code which contains memory management and exception handling code. We also will be able to throw good examples of inheritance. Then move to generics/templates. Regarding the Editor's ToC at procedural idioms, it contanins boost specific examples. I would prefer to take out boost specif things to the beyond the basics section of TOC 2. There an exhaustive boost chapter is welcome. After all we don't have a company like SUN who will provide JDK like API. So we should encourage all third party tools usage and anybody interested let them add one chater about usge of a specific tool there. Jayaram Ganapathy

Page protection
I have protected this page because it is part of a revert war among multiple authors of the book. There are apparently multiple Table of Contents pages for use in this book, and everybody wants this page to point to their own. the authors must agree on a particular course of action here, or I will not unprotect this page.

I have altered the page to include links to all the TOC pages, until the dispute can be resolved. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Authors
At this moment, the Authors page and template (maybe it has been used but I don't think that it is obvious enough) is "hidden" from general users. I think that we should add the link to somewhere appropriate, such as TOCs. - Ron Lau


 * I agree. -- xixtas talk 23:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC: What should be on the front page?
This is a request for comment about what should be on the front page. I suggest TOC2 with a prominent link the "Editors TOC". Appropriate parts of TOC1 should be incorporated into TOC2 (the front page) and TOC1 should be deleted leaving only one table of contents, one editor's portal and one book. What do other people think? -- xixtas talk 23:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That would certainly seem to me to be an improvement on the status quo. I'd like what is currently TOC2 to be more prominent and to be extended to be comprehensive.  It might be nice to have a "cover page" with some kind of picture and few words, linking to what's now TOC2, but that can be added at leisure; the main need is to make the book useful from the front page, and moving TOC2 there would largely achieve that.  In my opinion, though it was not my work, TOC2 is the best-structured and best-presented top-level navigation tool for this book at the present time. -- James Dennett 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with James Dennett on the coverpage with a picture and probably with the scope of the book, as people navigating to the toc aren't particularly interested in having the scope shown every time the page loads, the problem with that proposal is that all pages would have to be shifted to a new location, probably a content "directory", no big problem but lots of work for something that is more eye candy than anything else, if anyone would commit doing it they would need to finish it, that is the only problem I have with that change.
 * As for selecting TOC2 as the main table of content I have several problem that I have already enumerated previously, but I would like to understand what for James is the benefit that particular selection would bring over any other?
 * Xixtas can you express also why you suggest TOC2 ?
 * To me TOC1 is easier to navigate to any page of the book, provides a better insight on were all information is (this is also useful to point contributions as people can more easily edit and contribute in the proper section/page without a deep understanding of the global structure/framework), it uses chapters and is up-to-date now, as it reflects and provides the structure to the actual content and I guarantee my commitment to its maintenance (in the meaning that if no one updates it, I guarantee doing it), the only "problem" is that it displays more text but it offers also more options, this is a Wikimedia software limitation that menus or other type of controls can't be used. --Panic 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (Re: the choice of which TOC.) It's subjective, bug I cannot read TOC1 or find anything on it; it's visually too cluttered and chaotic looking. If I wanted to exaggerate for effect, I'd say it was in the "please stop it, it makes my eyes bleed" category of page design.  The simpler, "cleaner" presentation of TOC2 makes it a lot easier to use -- for me, at least.  (I'll observe in passing that when I design user interfaces, other people usually dislike them but they're very efficient for me .  Visual design is hugely subjective.) -- James Dennett 22:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ho, I understand you there and agree that it contains to much text, probably removing the summaries would make it less cumbersome but would also hide useful information (to a user that doesn't know much about the structure or what content is available), we must also consider that the book isn't even in a 50% done situation by removing the extra information it would indeed make it less chaotic but probably harder to use and contribute, to me as editor and as user of the book I prefer using the monolithic version to have a feel on how the book is doing and evolving and to know what is missing and it does indeed helps to fix the structure, this was the principal reason the TOC1 has evolved has it did, bandwidth and speed is a major limitation to most users.
 * I'm not oppose to removing the summaries of the chapters if people think it would make it better (one can always have a complete copy on his userspace for reference) but the idea that lead to be as it is was to make it easy to go from page to page without having to open a complete chapter to read a single page, this is the basic usefulness of having a TOC (there was a request and approved on the book conventions to limit pages to 32K), a result from users requesting the dropping of the old monolithic view I used at the beginning to structure the book.
 * Personally I like a sparse(to the point) interfaces (that is one of the requisites I use to select and use anything) for example Google above Yahoo or del.ici.os over other bookmarking services but here we have a interface limitation that does prevent the customization of what is shown (for instance it would be great to hide the summaries as we can hide/show the TOC of a page)
 * Probably removing the image and the book scope (and print and Q&A boxes) to a previous page (coverpage) would remove some of the confusion but it would also implicate much work probably a bot that would fixes the structure would be indicated to do it... --Panic 23:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion there's, too many unnecessary words in TOC1. Also the deep hierarchal structure seems undesirable to me. Something flatter that requires less decision-making from the reader appeals to me. TOC2 is definitely a more conventional structure. I've never seen a professionally produced book structured like TOC1 before. It's 4 levels deep (if you count the chapter headings as a level (which we should). But I don't really think my opinion matters too much. Also I would be happy with any table of contents that results in a low amount of duplicate content and pages with similar names being used in different versions. -- xixtas talk 22:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

For me TOC2 is better. For example the core language exception and templates is added into an advanced section whch I cannot agree. It gives a wrong impression to the reader and for a beginner he will feel exception, templates etc are advanced features and no need to know. I will suggest we create good quality materials in each section which should become a bible for the subtopic. Meanwhile we shouldn't omit any section from TOC1. All to be merged with TOC2 and if TOC2 is missing we have to add new sections. Jayaram Ganapathy


 * TOC2 is incomplete, the print version is not equal to the TOC's content, and the header levels are (and were from the start in conflict with the ones on TOC1, it also has several pages that are agglutinations of old versions of pages in TOC1 (even duplicating some content), do you consider it better or you have a distaste for the master heading (let's call them Chapters) of TOC1 ? --Panic 17:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

TOC1 contents which actually makes a long page is due to including the subsections in the page. Anyway when we open a chapter we get again the subsections in the top of the page. So all info in TOC1 we should link to subsections of appropriate main titles. This will be easy to navigate and the reader will not deviate from the concept he was actually looking for. Jayaram Ganapathy

reset
I have now addressed the problem of pages with "similar" names (and even removed some unused pages and redirects) and restored some of the log history of others and the names now at least reflect more the content (there is some more work needed there but it is being addressed). As for the wording and the levels I personally don't need them nor do I make use of it, but for a TOC as I said above the need is to have all the pages at your finger tips, at the moment that is the only way, it can be indeed simplified the chapters aren't pages in themselves they aggregation of sections under a subject, the summaries lists all pages in use on the book (that is the function of the TOC) I am incapable or reducing the display of that information without reducing the usefulness or need of the TOC, the book is big and will even grow bigger (when the exercise book is added there will be exercises for each section). --Panic 23:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it fixes the concerns Xixtas and James have. In fact with Xixtas' concerns it makes the problem worse, because you've introduced even more sublevels with the module moves. You also seem to have misunderstood something I said awhile back again, with your introduction of all the Chapter_ pages. Those aren't chapters at all, but units (using textbook terminology), because a chapter covers only one topic such as Variables, rather then Variables, Functions, etc. Units covers the latter, helping to group related topics. Also including "Chapter" in the module name goes against naming conventions. I also support using TOC2 as the one and only table of contents (if such a decision is needed), and including a cover page.
 * I also think the 32k limit on size of modules need to be dropped too. This is a very limiting restriction, instead what should probably be the case is a module can be broken up into separate modules, when it becomes possible to divide a module into two or more unique topics. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 12:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To what do you disagree? That it addressed in some ways Xixtas and James comments about TOC1 ?
 * Chapters are simply one of the ways to create divisions on a relatively lengthy piece of writing, such as a book, they are usually numbered or titled, chapters can have sub chapter for instance and yes in the lower levels the subject should be as restricted as possible, as for the structure. I think I know a thing or two about what I'm doing, part of the my formation also included Documentation Technologies were we were not only instructed on national and international norms but also how to write papers and in special technical paper and reports (by this I don't intent to imply that your views are less worthy of attention or consideration), I have agreed with Xixtas and James as they are right, the page has to much text but the book has too much content also and the TOC is intended for people to use and facilitate navigation that same content, TOC2 bare display is quicker and less confusing by it is also less informative on what is inside the each section, I have agreed that if they strongly feel that is best to remove that information I will do it, so to what are you objecting? That even removing that information would not suffice ?
 * I have done a review on other books and there is a great variety there are even more confusing setups, but few are as bare as TOC2, I have looked in particular to the books we most relate to C Programming and Java Programming and agree that in TOC1 we are a bit above those levels of complexity but also our book is now way beyond the C Programming and has just passed the Java Programming not only in the level of content but on topics, considering the still to do merge of the exercises book and adding an exercise section to each chapter, that will be even more text... --Panic 16:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I disagree that it addressed Xixtas and James comments about TOC1. I think it goes in the wrong direction and introduces more of the problems that were commented on. There a lot of problems with TOC1 that I think TOC2 addresses and clearly people just prefer TOC2. I had previously tried to address the concern on finding out what each chapter is about as part of the general reorganization of several small modules which dealt with general programming concepts into one chapter by suggesting that this chapter also include a general introductory to what each chapter covers. I think the structure of this book is only complex because of how you do things and you butt heads with anyone who tries to reduce the complexity of the book. Its one thing to be instructed on how things should be done and another thing to be able to make it actually work. Your qualifications or lack of qualifications means nothing on Wikibooks, your only judged on your work and actions here. You could be a Nobel Piece Prize winner for all we know, but that doesn't make TOC1 any better if people don't like it. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Darklama you know perfectly well that you were the first to ask for a new structure (and your objections were not only on the verbosity of the TOC but on the order or the chapter and in your need to remove, move and delete content, to what I wouldn't have any problem if you just added as much as you removed, this is the second problem we have amount our selves, second only to your objection to the authors page and the need to add the GFDL to TOC2 print version (at least that one is resolved) and the authors page seems to finally being addressed...)
 * More I have been particularly cooperative, you got your TOC2, with my support, but I notice that you haven't cared for it, even the print version is not equal to what the TOC contains, new pages were introduced and you have failed to add them to TOC2, in any case I will block any deletion plans for TOC1 (unless you can convince me of a real benefit, I haven't seen any but the real bare and simple aspect of it, to what I have stated my objections, we need to take into consideration the readers and that persons using the TOC may not know nothing about the subject or being just wanting to look at a particular section). --Panic 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To me the structure isn't that important, content his, I don't understand the need you have on discussing what model we should use for a door and what color to pain it and the door nob, if the house is still to be constructed, take a look at Editor's TOC and do some work if you want, geez... --Panic 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm hardly the first person to suggest it or say it needs to be done, I could possible be the first to try to do it though since the "forced merger" of two books. There was never a need to address the GFDL on the print out for TOC2, because it was always there, so I ignored that part of your false copyright violation complaint. You've only moved pages around and added pages which make no sense, so I have seen no need to add them. There are still yet other pages like the Windows API ones which of course haven't been added, because I think they shouldn't even be part of this book and any attempts in the past to address that have been subverted by you through reverting. TOC2 wouldn't of even been necessary if you have been more cooperative rather then simply reverting changes made to TOC1 to begin with. People's preference for TOC2, I would hope would open your eyes to the fact that your preferences are not necessary what makes a good book. I am a bit surprised admittedly that your even trying to understand people's objections to it. Saying you'll block any attempts to delete it though is a step back however.
 * In traditional textbooks, table of contents rarely mention what the chapters discussion, only what the names of the chapters are and the page number that the chapter begins on. I think that is one of the things Xixtas means by professional textbooks. Readers who know nothing about the subject aren't going to understand a summary of the chapter's topic either, by the time they've finished reading the chapter though, hopefully they will understand that aspect of the books subject. A person who knows nothing about the subject isn't going to know what section they want to read first and is very likely to assume its the first chapter listed. OTOH a person who knows something about the subject should be able to figure it out from the chapter names. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

I will not rehash discussions we already know not to see eye to eye, take a look on the talk page of the print version of TOC2 and see perfectly well you objecting to the GFDL being included and the authors page. As for the first person to suggest a need to the TOC it was indeed you (or you can say it was me and that lead to the fork), for me you could also fork the book (there isn't really a policy or guideline closed on that subject), I don't think it would be helpful but if you think my objections is the only think preventing you of being productive (so far you have not added much content) then I would support you forking the book. Darklama consensus includes the option to not agree with, this in not about numbers I can even be the only one opposing your changes but if you fail to convince me of the merits I have the option to block (and I think it's obvious that I'm not blocking all your changes nor doing it in bad faith, some of your changes not only demonstrates a bit of disrespect but also consideration, your actions about the author pages and my request to include the GFDL was just an example. This is not a traditional textbook if it were I would also have objected to have 2 TOCs and we wouldn't be discussion this, right ? --Panic 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My input has been requested so i've taken a look at the pages in question. First and foremost we can all agree that the page C++ Programming should not redirect to C++ Programming/Editor's TOC. I agree with the criticisms i've read above:
 * C++ Programming/TOC1 is confusing and cluttered. However, TOC1 contains all pages and has a complete print version.
 * C++ Programming/TOC2 is cleaner and more elegant, but there appear to be some chapters that do not appear on TOC2.
 * If TOC2 has the superior design (as it seems most people agree) then it should be made into the official TOC and TOC1 should be deleted. However, no TOC should be made the "official" one until it can pass two requirements: (1) it must be clean and easy to read, and (2) it must be complete. To that effect, there are two options available, from which I would advocate for the second:
 * Clean up TOC1 to use a better style, and to be less cluttered.
 * Expand TOC2 to contain all chapters, and ensure that the print version for this TOC is complete.
 * Putting this issue to a straw poll now would likely show 4 or 5 votes to 1, which is hardly consensus but at the same time is an indication that the minority should consider some form of compromise. Failure to reach consensus on the matter results in maintaining the status quo, which is ugly and not helpful. For the benefit of the entire book you people need to find a compromise, and failure to find a suitable compromise is unacceptable. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

I object to a decission by straw pool (also you numbers don't seem correct, see talk page of TOC2 and I think I saw some user commenting in James talk page also), as for confusing and cluttered we can make the same claim of many other book TOCs this is your personal interpretation and it seem that even the main page of Wikibooks seems to have problems on this regard, but I agree if TOC2 fails to be updated it should be deprecated that was the reason I and Darklama used to remove a previous existing navigation scheme used on the book... --Panic 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didnt say to make the decision by straw poll. Straw polls cannot be used to make decisions, only to measure consensus. My point was only that there appears to be a majority in favor of TOC2, and that you seem to be the only person here defending TOC1. You mention deprecating TOC2 if it is not expanded, but by the same token TOC1 needs to be deprecated if it is not cleaned and improved. Furthermore, as the minority, it is unlikely that the decision will be made in your favor, and if you dont compromise you will be personally responsible for the decreased usefulness of the entire book. Beyond that, if you choose not to compromise (as is typically your method) you will be ignored as being stubborn and "eccentric" and the rest of the book community will move on without you. You have an opportunity to work towards compromise, i suggest you not waste that opportunity. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree in general in using straw polls even to get an idea on the consensus "status", since by default they are polarizing, but that is another discussion for another forum...
 * As for you interpretation of me against the majority it clearly illustrates the point numbers shouldn't mater or be taken in consideration (for reasons already addressed on other discussions), and I disagree with your interpretation in general about the number and the status of the page just take into consideration Nanotechnology (Book of the Month December 2006), so it is clear that simpler isn't probably the way to go, Hum I think C++ also got an award or nominated for one some time ago, so not all is that bad, there are more important things to do in the book and if a TOC isn't maintained it should be discussed for deletion and not on the general VfD but by the book community, as we have done with the stagnant navigation scheme I referred above (deleted by consensual decission). --Panic 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You can say whatever you want to say, but not compromising is not acceptable here. Any solution, even one that you personally disagree with is better then the current status. I have nothing further to say on the matter, as usual you are stubborn and unhelpful. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Whiteknight what is wrong is you validation of actions against consensual discussion or lets call them BeBold actions without regard to expressed opposition. The current status exist because Darklama removed unilaterally the TOC1 from the front page (even after I have expressed objections to it) so please don't imply that I'm unwilling to compromise as I have done it enough times and even the existence of a second TOC is prof that I'm able to...
 * Consider the fallowing would it be OK for me to go to the book you are working on and change the cover page, without consultation with the other contributors of the book, and even do it if they expressed objections ?  --Panic 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is acceptable for you to change the cover page in a book I am working on without asking for my permission. You can alter any page in any book at any time. This is a wiki, and no author has unilateral control over any book or page, and no author needs to be asked for permission to make any change. If darklama didn't ask your permission, it's because he didn't need to. Nobody needs to ask you for anything ever.
 * The current status exists because you don't control this book, and because people are allowed to do things that you disagree with. I wanted you to be blocked from wikibooks forever, but you were unblocked: people didnt need to ask my permission to unblock you, and they didn't need to stop for every objection. Your continued participation on this project is proof that you don't understand the process of making decisions here. Who cares if you objected or not? does it really matter? should we all stop and ask for your permission when we make a change, and should the entire community stop making forward progress for your every disagreement? It would be nice if you would agree, but your agreement is not strictly needed if the community wants something else. You have two options really, unless half a dozen wikibookians magically join the discussion and agree with you:
 * Radically fix TOC1 to be cleaner and easier to read, and then try again to convince people that TOC1 is better then TOC2.
 * Accept TOC2, and make the changes that are necessary to make it complete.
 * Insistance that you should get what you want despite being the minority is called being "stubborn", and stubbornness has no place in consensus decision making. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

That statement is not correct, I don't need to ask permission to change any page (but at least I should exert careful consideration when I do perform an action covered by being bold) that is perfectly explained on the BeBold, Darklama wasn't being bold he had previous knowledge that I opposed it, it was indeed a editors conflict that he unilaterally decided to shift to his understanding of what should be there, to his credit he only used editor's toc (my name it was TOC3), the status of the present cover page was created by that action nothing more. I'm not being stubborn, I'm blocking the change because I think the actual page (you creation) is not perfect but it is indeed better than toc2 or editor's toc, and continue to defend that toc1 is the better option, and until consensus is reached should have been restored. I strongly disagree in the power of numbers. --Panic 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My "creation" was a response to an edit war to which you were a party. There would still be a TOC up there if you and your sockpuppets hadn't gotten into a war over it. You are being stubborn because something has to change, and you are resisting any option that is not yours. If you would spend half the energy cleaning TOC1 to make it better that you spend arguing with Darklama and I about all this stupid stuff, the TOC1 would be great and everybody would love it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Whiteknight, TOC1 isn't bad, it can indeed be improved as anything else, I have consideration for you comments as all other users views on what should be there, the toc is not overcomplicated and there are other examples of similar tocs on Wikibooks or even other that are more complex, in this case, I'm not the only "contributor" of that toc, it was the result of the evolution of the book under several editors (you can check the history of both tocs), toc2 on the other hand was a creation of Darklama (I even have contributed to it, but little I stated to Darklama that I thought it was of benefit having another structure available to the users, but that i would not actively maintain it) and was added with my agreement to the book (even altering the order of the pages, I have no problem with that). I have a problem on how you see that any user that wants to make a change can impose or even lead the book into disorder or degrade it's use by unilaterally and with disregard the be bold setup, that action has lead the book into what is indeed a edit dispute (not a revert war, even if you want to believe that the alteration was done by one of my puppets it didn't revert a change of Darklama), your action and SB Jhonny on this has been partial since you have empowered a user to bypass the normal decission and discussion process, in several steps this is supported by other discussions and divergences we have had and still have in other points.
 * I have no problem in working with Darklama or any other user I just reserve the right to disagree with some changes if not convinced that they are an improvement or of benefit to this book or on anything that does have an impact on the community, for instance TOC3 (the editor's toc, I see it as a great idea, and have used it and maintained it) I don't interfere in books I have no part in (even if I may do some edits or have some ideas I'll always abstain to do major reformatting without checking with the people actively working on it, this falls into the definition of respect for others views and in agreement of the BeBold), I'm not asking that toc2 should be deleted or in any way changed but it is my view that taking in consideration precedence and how the change was done, toc1 should be restored to its old position and discussion continue on how to improve it nothing more. --Panic 02:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes less is more. Just to pull an example out of the hat in TOC 1 there's "Comparisons" which is described as "No language above all else, simple introduction on the diversity of programming languages and a jump point to more experienced readers." How is that in any way helpful to the reader? BTW, there are many other examples that would have worked equally well. I do wonder if all that small text was replaced with " Blah blah, rhubarb gobbledygook. Blah blah blah. " whether anyone would notice. -- xixtas talk 04:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is still a section under heavy work but you were correct no much info on that summary, txs for pointing it out. --Panic 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions on TOC1
Hello friends, I would like to bring your attention to the way the Contents of TOC1 is organized. You can see Baics, Advanced wtc. I found templates, exception handling etc in the advanced section. What I feel is few years before the text books organised these sections to advanced when they were introduced. Now they are mandatory part of core C++ language knowledge. Hence I would suggest to remove those kind of subsectioning. Rather what will be appealing is have a chapter on Exception handling which should become a bible as we progress. Have a chapter on Resource Management where we should collect everything about memory management. PLEASE DON@T DIVIDE THE CORE LANGUAGE FEATURES TO ADVANCED SECTION AS THE READERS WILL FEEL THAT THEY KNOW ENOUGH C++ AFTER READING BASICS BUT IN REAL LIFE THAT IS NOT AT ALL ENOUGH. Regards, Jayaram Ganapathy


 * Good point, the naming of the chapters has also suffered a bit of evolution, Darklama didn't agreed with the original names and order (that was I think one of the motivations for the creation of TOC2), I'll give a look on how it was before... --Panic 17:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at TOC1 in 16 April 2006 the basics was called fundamentals, and indeed fundamentals give the idea of the foundation for something else and doesn't qualify the content in itself. I'll try and see what I can do about it. --Panic 17:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As for removing the advanced section what is your proposition? Merging with the "Fundamentals" would not be correct (they are indeed extra features of the language that may not even be used for simple programs and there are old programs that don't use this "new" concepts"), it would also be wrong to mix it with the part about objects (classes etc) do you have a particular idea for that or removing the word Basic and probably give a little introduction at the begging of the chapter (with your points about the importance on learning all and probably a bit of history on the evolution of C++, to explain why). I have removed the word basic (if you feel that it partially addresses the problem I will rename the pages also. Did it help at all ? --Panic 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The core language of C++ should comprise one section. The language is so interdependent that you cannot say exception handling is advanced and constrors are basic. When you write a ctor you should be aware that only exceptions are the only way to return the status of what happened in a ctor. Similarly you should not through an exception from destructor because when stack unwinding happens if an objects being destructed again throws an exception what will you do etc.. So the core language is one section and don't divide it into basic advanced etc. then the standard things as a section and non standard things in another section. Divide contents into 4

Introduction having all general things like what is a compiler, history of B, C C++ etc.. C++ Language Core language Standard libraries standard c libraries, STL etc Design Patterns implemented in C++ STructura, behavioural etc.. Beyond the standard Socke programming, threads etc Boost library, crypto graphy etc Appendix what ever meta information we want to have

And by the way we are into an ocean and new things will always keep on coming to be added. We will discuss and include it appropriately.

Jayaram Ganapathy


 * Have you got the C++ Standard ? If you take a look they do precisely that, I removed the word basic, it wasn't there because I added it fundamentals seems a better definition and was the original label of that section, the idea is that you can code in C++ without using exception handling, but contructors are needed to explain classes and um problably would be crazy not to use classes on a C++ program, but the TOC as it is is perfectly acceptable the problem seem to be the verbosity of the summaries of some section and that with time will be resolved (we have to take into consideration that the book originally was a monolithic page, I have split it across topics but some topics are still to generic to by name give an idea of what is inside, the other problem with TOC2 is the order of the topic again if we take a look as how it is ordered on the standard reference we see that there isn't no optimal order, so far I have ordered as people have asked and how I would have liked to read a book about C++ and other were ordered that way before I wrote a line into it. --Panic 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jayaram that exceptions ought not to be considered an advanced topic in any modern text on C++. The C++ standard is emphatically not organized as a tutorial or even as a reference guide.  The ordering in TOC2 seems to me to be much closer to what I want in a contemporary book on C++.  I could accept adding additional entries to TOC2, so long as it retains its visual cleanliness.  -- James Dennett 18:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The visual cleanliness of TOC2 can't be guaranteed (unless we make it a book convention), make a proposal that explains what you meant by visual cleanliness (I call it simplicity), or provide a simple structural framework as example, and that would at least prevent it degrading, in any case anyone is are free to edit any page, but to provide a "standard" it should be written down, so to avoid divergences, add the proposal to the proper section and if up to me we should adopt it. --Panic 18:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Guarantees aren't relevant. Very little of subjective value can be guaranteed, but that is normally not a major problem.  Aesthetics cannot be defined by rules and standards.  At some level we have to trust that people can form a consensus on a layout/appearance that works well.  Common sense is a better guide here than frameworks, standards, and formal proposals, in my opinion. -- James Dennett 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

Agree but if you don't inform others what the goal is, it is difficult to hope that the layout or appearance would evolve on a single line or that it would continue to be as clean as it is now, that was what I was stating, if you provide some guideline people may decide to agree with you and commit to it (I would support it), if not "so long as it retains its visual cleanliness" may indeed be a small timeframe, it all depends on the number of editors and how divergent their aesthetic values are. --Panic 20:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Take for instance the TODO box example, we could have 101 versions of the box in use on the book but agreeing in using a standard the text becomes more consistent, or for instance how you set code styles on a project if you don't inform the other programmers the result can be very messy, but do as you will, I was just pointing out that particular need... --Panic 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not necessary to inform others in advance, though a small note on the Talk page could do that anyway. Assume good faith; most editors will not do dreadful things.  If there is something that looks problematic, we can discuss it with the relevant editor at the time and resolve it.  I don't see a need for people to "commit" to guidelines for a specific page; the general principles of courtesy and common sense governing Wikibooks are usually sufficient. -- James Dennett 22:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That was what I was pointing out, it isn't a question of good or bad faith it is a question of consistency of actions, if you agree move this discussion to the content discussion page and evolve a bit more on what you consider maintaining the toc2 clear, I think I understand what you mean by it, but even that main not be correct, I don't intend in editing toc2 but if I see activity there I will help fix anything that becomes broken. --Panic 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand what you've written above. Could you rephrase it maybe? -- James Dennett 23:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, What I was trying to say from the start is that this is not a case of assuming good or bad faith, if not informed editors may pull in divergent directions. Stating some expectations or guidelines will improve consistency of edits, reduce confusion and avoid divergence of viewpoints (or at least make them clear), this can only be done by providing a goal or objective.
 * Toward that objective and considering your views and it seems Darklama's opinion expressed on TOC2, it would be helpful that some of what you expect to be written down so others can work in the same direction. --Panic 23:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a TOC from another wikibook that everyone likes the style of? -- xixtas talk 00:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

That is an hard one, I have looked at several wikibooks and there seems not to exist a standard look, each seems to use the best format that addresses that particular book, I have made comments that the Nanotechnology TOC seems complex, but I would be hard pressed to came with a setup that would result as good as the one they used, another "look" is the one used on the C Programming book, it is close to what is now on TOC2, a simple and direct not thrills or with extensive information, that seems also to work well as the book is still very small (much more could be added to it), our TOC1 resembles more the Java Programming but has gone beyond that has the C++ Programming book now has more content and topics. As for the optimal or preferred option or setup I can't say I have one, I like the one that works for me (but I take into consideration not only what I want but the purpose that it serves), I'm not a Web designed (nor I like it very much, heck I use TiddlyWiki for my own pages as much as I can not to get into it :) ), I have done several UIs and I have an active project with a community than seems to like my design but software human-machine interfaces aren't exactly portable to the Web environment or even more to a Wikistyle, anyhow every CS course has a class that teaches how to go about it (colors, distribution, stratification of information by usefulness etc) but it doesn't take into consideration personal tastes or ones eye for detail :). --Panic 00:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I generally prefer both simplicity and making good use of space on a page, so to me Bartending and European History look kind of good. I also think Haskell's use of tables for the table of contents across the page looks good, because it uses more of the page, not leaving as much empty space and could be useful for this book too. --dark lama  00:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Some observations/opinions about those TOCs. Nanotechnology - Great book very interesting read. But the Table of Contents isn't one I'd want to emulate. I think it makes it harder to find content than if it were presented linearly. C Programming is spare and lacks a lot of the features I think a good TOC can have. Java Programming seems to have some consistency problems but leaving that aside, the subheads are used for placemarkers within the module. I like the practical, spare setup of of Java programming. I think it makes it pretty easy to find what you are looking for. This is not how TOC1 is set up, TOC1 is much more difficult to use to find content. Bartending I really like this one except for the unused whitespace under the picture. European History I like but isn't really suitable for a programming book. Haskell's tables and use of tracks are interesting, and I don't feel that they are as difficult to navigate as the Nanotech TOC. In general people go to tables of contents to direct them to somewhere else. They are looking for something. Having too many words makes finding things difficult, having too deep a hierarchal structure makes finding things more difficult, not less so. -- xixtas talk 13:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning TOC1
Since nobody else was trying anything, I decided to try to clean up TOC1 a little bit as per the criticisms people have mentioned about it. I wasn't able to clean all of it, because most of the TOC is nested in transclusions. My edits are HERE. If people like this, then I suggest we clean the transcluded summary pages as well. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Any progress?
I haven't been watching this discussion, but i didn't forget about it. Have you people decided which TOC to use here? If you guys have a solution, I will unprotect the page and make it redirect to the proper place. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on the C++ Book
Perhaps more real world examples and flow within the book would make it more user friendly. Having more than one table of contents may serve to confuse and frustrate readers as well. Also, looking at programs from a larger scale and focusing on practical applications like user interface design within C++ in Windows and Linux (or other) systems and maybe fruitful. Thank you all for your contributions to the C++ book. C++ certainly is quite an important topic and probably one of the most widely used and functional languages as well, so it is quite an important book for the community. --Remi 23:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting ideas.


 * One difficulty with covering large scale programming issues is that the examples and explanations of any one could often fill a dedicated book -- and it's necessary to have a good understanding of the language (and standard library) before looking at the many factors involved in "real-world" programming in the large. It might be interesting to try to address that though; the online/wikibook form might have strengths that print books do not (for example, the fact that a 200-page appendix to cover one example might be entirely reasonable online).


 * User interface design (with a C++ slant) is another area worthy of one or more books on its own. Two issues are (a) the fact that C++ has no standard UI library, so it's necessary to pick one or more to use, and (b) the fact that many UI designs are handled fairly well by less powerful tools than C++.


 * (An aside: C++ isn't much of a "functional" programming language, though it has some limited support for some functional concepts. But you probably didn't mean "functional" in the technical sense.)


 * Thanks for the feedback/ideas (and your other input too). -- James Dennett 18:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I share Remi vision for the development for the book, but such vision was contested previously on the book, it was one on the reasons that lead to the fork, or for the yet to be resolved move of the MFC pages out of the book unilaterally by Darklama, having said this, if we think about priorities, there are for now plenty to be added yet and some of the subjects Remi points out are now listed at least on the editor's toc for development...
 * Make files, source control, POSIX, Unicode, 32 to 64Bits and unit testing are without doubt less contested or less prone to cause conflict in adding them to the book, for me I also have a personal wish to take on wxWidgets in a near future, at the moment I'm developing software for windows (and with Linux in mind, WINE) using the MFC libraries, considering market share of the OSs this is a important subject not only for anyone intending to build more that experimental software or generic libraries. GUI and Networking are nowadays important to every developer and even to the a language (the C++ may evolve to support some of this functionalities in one way or another directly), at least that is what I've been reading from time to time, even if making it a reality would be difficulty, uniformity and a consistent API would indeed be a life improvement to any C++ programmer, at the moment we are faced with competing solutions battling for developers attention, some are not as free as they could be and are more shackles than an helping hand (btw I have a personal "hate" for the .net platform in specially to C++/CLI, count me out to contribute to one section about it :), but for instance I'm watching with attention the development of IronPython as a RAD tool for the MS platform, it will make prototyping a breeze).  --Panic 19:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)