Talk:Roslyn (compiler)

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 September 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance). Microsoft Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I was hoping that perhaps someone who has used the Roslyn CTP more extensively than me could start fleshing out this page? There's a lot of interesting floating around now on the subject, so would be great to have some more content here. Noldorin (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current Roslyn Git at Codeplex is down. Here is a Github repository that mirrors the files just in case Codeplex goes down. Apparently it just went RTM instead of CTP. Someone want to update this article to reflect that? This project has potential for C# and Visual BASIC compilers that are cross platform with Universal Windows apps. Eris Blastar (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I came upon this article, which at that time contained in the first sentence of the introduction the claim that it is better known as "Roslyn". There was no citation for this, but also no citation needed tag for the claim, either.

Based on existing sources cited within the article, as well as inspection of the project homepage and other sources, I determined that the claim was not contradicted by reality—with the name "Roslyn" being in common use all over the place in both casual and formal contexts, and indeed I determined that the evidence suggested that use of the name ".NET Compiler Platform" was much rarer. So I hoisted one of the existing citations from the article that supported the "Roslyn" claim that was in its opening sentence.

To be abundantly clear: I want to emphasize this is not was a result of someone challenging a claim that *I* made, nor did this arise out of a dispute with anyone. It is instead a result of me stumbling independently upon an existing claim and then resolving not to do the common-but-lazy thing I (and what seems like many or most other editors) have done probably at least once in the past—i.e., tagging some fact as lacking a reference and walking away for someone else to deal with. This is me, on my own, noticing a lack of an annotation regarding some claim, identifying material from existing sources present in the article that can be used to used to back up that claim (or not), verifying that indeed the claim seems to be a sound one, and then annotating the claim with a source that corroborates it. Given the nature of the claim, in addition to the WP:COMMONNAME guideline, I also performed a page move based on this.

An anonymous editor then used a request board intended to work around technical restrictions to get another editor to revert the move. User:Anthony Appleyard, who performed this move back to ".NET Compiler Platform" at the request of the anonymous user, then moved it back to "Roslyn" after I contacted him and laid out the issues.

The anonymous user has called into dispute the claim about the name "Roslyn" and has now tagged the article as lacking adequate references.

To be straightforward: I'm 95% certain that this has nothing to do with any actual dispute about the article title. Given that a dispute elsewhere (in another article) with this same anonymous editor immediately preceded any current issues with the name of this article, I suspect it's a consequence of some soreness and bad WP:OWNERship problems. That's obviously conjecture, but it's also not immaterial to the issue at hand.

Previously, when the anonymous editor asked User:Anthony Appleyard to move away from the "Roslyn" name, anon's justification was that there was no discussion for the move. As I pointed out before, there was and is, however, no attempt from anon to start a discussion. It's a simple stonewall with a post-hoc claim regarding lack of discussion.

Another thing that I discovered this morning, is that this article was actually originally created with the "Roslyn" name and lived there until a user moved it to ".NET Compiler Platform" without discussion. So citing "lack of discussion" can be levied against either name here and any appeal to status quo isn't favorable to one side or the other.

If there are any concerns or an actual discussion to be had here, then let's have it. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC) :@C. A. Russell: Hi. I'm calling you because I need you to verify that I've understood this rather long message correctly. As I understand it, sometimes in February this year, you moved the article from ".NET Compiler Platform" to "Roslyn" without a discussion. An anonymous editor contested the move. But ultimately no discussion was held and the anonymous editor's objection was dismissed as unfounded. This isn't exactly unusual. The policy here is that an unilateral move is reverted by request, if a second party find it questionable. Nonetheless, per our WP:IAR/WP:GAME, admins may dismiss the claim of one side or another, if it is egergous or frivolous. [reply]

The rest of the message suddenly becomes very difficult to decipher. The anonymous user has called into dispute the claim about the name "Roslyn" and has now tagged the article as lacking adequate references. I tried looking at the article history, and I see the opposite: An anonymous user provided a source and proved the claim. I'm 95% certain that this has nothing to do with any actual dispute ... it's a consequence of some soreness and bad WP:OWNERship problems. This is peculiar conclusion, given that I can't see the condemned act itself. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "I'm calling you because I need you to verify that I've understood this rather long message correctly."

Answer: sounds like you don't. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck through an edit by the sockpuppet Flowing dreams and deleted an edit with no reply. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source code for "Traditional" C and C++ compilers was freely available long before Roslyn or .Net were created. Those compilers also provide directives to allow developers to interact with them. 2601:5C2:200:46:146B:33D0:1FD1:EF23 (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Roslyn Compiler Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]