Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:C (programming language)

2007-12-08T10:14:17Z

Cc..aa..ll: /* Developer - Dennis Ritchie only ? */ new section

{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=2004-03-15, 02:35:04
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/C (programming language)
|action1result=promoted
|action1oldid=2774835
|action2=FAR
|action2date=2006-07-25, 12:59:24
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/C (programming language)
|action2result=demoted
|action2oldid=65748965

|action3=GAN
|action3date=2006-09-09, 00:06:07
|action3result=failed
|action3oldid=74539171

|currentstatus=FFA
}}

{{WikiProject Computer science|class=B|importance=high}}

{{archive box|* [[Talk:C (programming language)/Archive 1|Archive 1]]}}

== C: High, middle, or low-level language ==

Okay, I can see we're seting up for a revert war here with the question of whether C is a high-level language, low-level language, or something in-between.

Personally, I've always thought of C as one step above assembler, so it's a pretty low-level language to me. (It's got no inherent matrix operations, no string operations, no garbage collection, etc. You get to manage memory all by your lonesome self. Pointers are a nearly-direct representation of what [[PDP-11]]s and [[VAX]] computers do in single machine-language instructions.) And other text in the article supports this assertion. But I'd like to hear what others have to say before changing this again.

[[User:Atlant|Atlant]] 12:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

:I want to say "medium"; "low-level" as I've heard it used has a strong connotation of "assembler or machine language", but C is certainly the lowest thing that has been called a high-level language. [[User:DanielCristofani|DanielCristofani]] 14:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

::Well, compared to languages that are being designed today, C is relatively low-level, but I think the historical precedent has been to describe C as high-level. In contrast, languages like Python are often called "very-high level languages". In any case I don't think we should use the term "medium-level language", as that is not at all standard usage (googling for "high-level language C" yields more than 5.5 million hits; googling for "medium-level language C" yields fewer than than 35,000). Therefore, given the choice between high- and low-level, I think HLL is a better description of C. [[User:Neilc|Neilc]] 03:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

:::What would happen if we didn't use any of these phrases (at least prominently near the start of the article)? If they don't have clear, agreed-upon meanings even among people knowledgeable about programming languages, I doubt they're much use to the less-informed readers the article is written for. I'm going to remove the phrase and see if anyone objects. [[User:DanielCristofani|DanielCristofani]] 04:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

::::A link to [[medium-level programming language]] somewhere in the article is necessary, as it describes many important characteristics of C and other C-level languages. It doesn't have to be on the top. The terms high-level and low-level are historically pretty well defined (at least better than some like "object-oriented" or "structured"), and C is a canonical example of neither, but a borderline case. Hence the invention of term "medium-level" (or "portable assembler" / "high-level assembler" etc.). And I didn't know about the 17 May revert when I did the change, no revertwarish intentions here, just a coincidence. [[User:Taw|Taw]] 11:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::I've just made "low level" and "medium level", down in the first paragraph of "Overview", into links to the appropriate articles. [[User:DanielCristofani|DanielCristofani]] 03:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::C is not "typically" called a "low level language". It is at ''least'' a medium-level language (I would still argue it is a high-level language according to historical precedent). [[User:Neilc|Neilc]] 05:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::::I've tried to rephrase it; it's a little awkward and maybe the paragraph now needs rewriting but it should probably say the same things it now says and should include all three links... [[User:DanielCristofani|DanielCristofani]] 10:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that "levels" in this usage is relative to implementation (with "machine language" being the lowest possible level in any case). For example, if an application is written in C and then directly translated into machine language, then C is the higher level language in this implementation; but if an interpreter for [[BASIC]] was written in C, C would be the middle level. I think that defining levels may be meaningless without a context. [[User:Mal7798|Mal7798]] 05:13, 03 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't object to the lede not trying to characterize the "level" of C.

[[User:Atlant|Atlant]] 11:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, these "levels" are too ill-defined and inconsistent in their usage to characterize the level of nearly any language, especially one lying near the boundary like C. Better might be to give comparisons; I think we can all agree it's higher-level than assembly, but lower-level than Ada, Smalltalk, Java, or Haskell. Or we might just say, "some call it X because Y" for each one — just don't go on about it in an inappropriate place like the intro paragraph. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 09:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly the case that C is a HLL in the mainstream sense of that term, namely
"something significantly higher and significantly different from,
but that typically compiles down to, assembler."
And it's equally certain that C is very low-level, as high-level languages go.
These points are very well worth mentioning, as is a third:
that referring to C as "high level assembly"
is sometimes done fondly and sometimes pejoritavely
(that is, critics accuse C in this way, but adherents love the language for it).
 
But the term "medium level" is, I agree, pretty meaningless.
[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] 05:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

As to the question of C's "level", I agree that catagorizing the language this way is mostly without warrant. C is, in nearly ever sense of the word, a beginner's language. I believe it to be realtively simple, and only a step above the beloved BASIC dialects. In fact, my first language was C and I believe it to be a valuable learning tool. For this reason, if find it hard to describe C as a "high level" language, yet at the same time I remain partial to it and hope it remains in close memory.- [[User:Shoe1127|Shoe1127]] 22:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

:Shoe1127, "high-level" doesn't usually mean that a language is difficult, it means that the languge abstracts away from hardware details. Thus, it is possible for a beginner's language to also be high level -- in fact, BASIC is in a high-level language. Regarding the question of whether C is high-level or low-level or neither, I don't really have anything to add... [[User:Cadr|Cadr]] 22:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say c is a medium low level language. I program several languagess and this is what i think thanks [[User:Rekh|Rekh]] 19:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

:: The terms "high-level" and "low-level" refer to how similar the langauge is to the hardware. Since C is portable, technically it would have different "levels" in comparison with different architectures. However, since most hardware is very similar, the "level" of C can be said to be about the same for every architecture.

:: Saying this, it should be noted that the terms "high-level" and "low-level" are NOT precise, exact, OR well defined. '''Parts''' of C are high-level, and parts are low-level. Saying that the language is "somewhere between" is NOT accurate, nor does it give a good picture of what C is - which is a mix between low level and high level syntax.

:: I disagree however that the "level" of a language is a bad way to categorize - but if we do categorize C this way, it should be CLEAR what we mean by it. [[User:Fresheneesz|Fresheneesz]] 00:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

From ''The C Programming Language'' by [[K&R]], first edition (I'm [[old school]]), page 1:

:''"C is a relatively 'low level' language."''

From ''Introduction to Computing Systems: From Bits & Gates to C and Beyond'' by Yale Patt and Sanjay Patel, second edition, pages 293-294:

:''"C was developed for use in writing compilers and operating systems, and for this reason the language has a low-level bent to it. The language allows the programmer to manipulate data items at a very low level yet still provides the expressiveness and convenience of a high-level language."''

I think it's best to say that C is a relatively low-level language, as compared to high-level languages. I wouldn't call it medium-level, since there really isn't such a thing. Low-level implies the language keeps the programmer in touch with the machine, high-level implies otherwise. [[User:70.106.101.119|70.106.101.119]] 19:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:Could we just say it's a high-level language as compared to assembly language but low-level as compared to other high-level languages? If a bunch of people knowledgable about C can't make up their minds, it's evident that there's probably not one right answer. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 21:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:I have always considered it a fairly low-level language. The definition I'm familiar with for a low-level language is that the number of machine language statements generated tends to be less than the same program written in a high-level language. The fact that K&R also considers it a relatively low-level language, I would vote for "relatively low-level language". [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 21:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::Hmm, that's a weird definition. Let me throw in a vote for (somewhat) "High Level". C has complex control structures (do, while, for), functions, and a real and powerful type system. At the time it was created, it was high level, about on par with Pascal or Modula 2. Low-level languages are languages that are specific to a processor, high-level languages abstract these details away... --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 22:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a low level language if you look at c key words it is very low there are 33 key words. Everything else is additional functions not neccessary to use. [[User:Rekh|Rekh]] 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'm kind of with you on that, and everyone else seems to have missed the point :) The problem is a fundemental problem of definition, which this page hasn't addressed yet. The 33 key words define a low level (3G, procedural) language: there aren't even input and output operators. On the other hand, standard C (which includes the standard C libraries), is an ordinary (3G, procedural) language. [[User:218.214.148.10|218.214.148.10]] 02:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::The 'closeness' to asm or machine code has become a bit of a red herring partly because most people have never examined the machine code generated by Pascal or Fortran compilers, so that's worth clearing up: For most of their lives, Pascal and Fortran compilers generated smaller, faster, tighter code than C compilers, and there was generally a one-to-one correspondance between lines of code and assembler constucts in all three languages. The smaller faster tighter code resulted from better optimisation (tied to the simpler syntax), and better integration of the 'library' functions, not because i++ compiled differently than i=i+1.

::On the other hand, sprintf is a high level construct, and that's why C, not Pascal or Fortran, eventually replaced asm as the language of choice for writing Windows Device Drivers. The high level constructs in C are parts of the library that can, with care, be re-written or excluded. Note that it took a while though: Windows NT was written in C, but the Windows NT device drivers were written in asm, because in C it was difficult to get the kind of smaller tighter faster code required. [[User:218.214.148.10|218.214.148.10]] 02:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:::That's mainly because the x86 architecture doesn't provide good support for HLLs including C. Unix device drivers were all written in C on the PDP-11 and VAX, even the interrupt-handling code (except for a small veneer to save "scratch" registers and map into the C functioon interface). On some processors such as M*CORE, there is such a close match that even the interrupt-handler veneer isn't needed. PDP-11 C programmers quickly learned how to code so that they would get the desired object code, e.g. do...while(--i) to get a SOB instruction. The optimizer underwent continual improvements, but for a long time you'd see micromanaged source code like this. Efficiency really mattered on small, slow machines. [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 21:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah, my final vote is that C is a '''relatively low-level programming language'''. If that's good enough for '''[[K&R]]''', that's good enough for me. [[User:70.17.41.123|70.17.41.123]] 21:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

::A lot of the confusion comes from a seemingly small distinction. Are "low level" and "high level" two distinct categories of languages, or are they purely relative terms like "tall" and "short"?

::Both uses have a long history. When the terms are used to refer to distinct categories, "low level language" means machine language or assembly language--these are processor-specific, and assembly is almost isomorphic to machine language. A "high level language" is then anything that needs a compiler or an interpreter. (If people were going to draw a crisp line, it makes sense that it was placed there, because there is a bit of a gap between assembly and (say) FORTRAN and then a smooth-ish gradation from FORTRAN up through more and more abstract and featureful languages. Also, when the line was drawn, other languages were not vastly more featureful than C, and it was still common for people to write programs in assembly language.) In short, when "low-level" and "high-level" are used as names of discrete categories, C is definitely a "high-level language".

::On the other hand, when the terms are used in a purely relative way, C is plainly at a lower level than most other computer languages, and especially it is at a lower level than most other computer languages people write programs in, since assembly-language coding has lost popularity. (Likewise FORTRAN etc.) So it is entirely correct to say that "C is a relatively low-level programming language" or "compared with more recent languages, C is a low-level language". Even "C is a very low-level language" would be better than "C is a low-level language", because the word "very" would make it clear that the phrase was being used as a comparative, whereas in isolation it looks like a classification.

::: But there are more modern languages that are assembly languages, so "compared with more recent languages" is going down the wrong track. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 09:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::In short, yes, "'''C is a relatively low-level programming language'''" and "'''C is a high-level programming language'''" mean subtly different things and they are both unimpeachably correct. [[User:DanielCristofani|DanielCristofani]] 21:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

:::One way of rolling both aspects into the same sentence is to say "C is relatively low level as high-level languages go." —[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:Ummit|talk]]) 14:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: The categories are sloppy to start with, and there isn't a well-ordering of "levels" for PLs. C is definitely a low-level HLL. Unless something crucially depended on the category, which it doesn't, "relatively low-level" conveys enough of the right flavor: not the lowest level, but also not very far from it. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 09:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

==Confusing link==

i´ve deleted the link because this is not suppose to promote paying books, nevertheless its quality.
if you want to promote a book try other place! or even other sectionin wiki.
 
[preceding [[Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment added 4 February 2006 at 18:54 by [[User:62.169.90.135|62.169.90.135]] ([[User_talk:62.169.90.135|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/62.169.90.135|contribs]])]

:The deleted link was to the book [http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/unleashed/ C Unleashed] by Heathfield et al. External links to reference materials should be included or deleted based on their relevance and notability, not on their free/paid status. (We've got several other printed, purchasable books listed, all relevant and notable.)
:I'm not going to restore the link myself, because I'm one of its contributors and therefore not unbiased, but if anyone else would like to, feel free. (The book's notability is somewhat enhanced in that many of its contributors were comp.lang.c regulars.) [[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:Ummit|talk]]) 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

::Agreed. I restored the link to the book. In my opinion, it's not appropriate for an encyclopaedia not to list notable purchasable material solely due to the fact that it's not free. [[User:Dkasak|Denis Kasak]] 15:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

== Initialization of static variables ==

Hi,
I recently came across in C that we cannot call functions while initializing static variables in C, why is it so?

int my_function(void);

int main()
{
static int p = my_function();
}

Thanks

:Because all static data is required to be initialized prior to program startup, and parts of the program cannot be run before it starts. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 05:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

::Well, then how is the same possible in C++, and by the way do you mean to say that memory is allocated for static variables well before the program starts.

:::Well, C++ is a different language! It's got mechanisms that let initialization code run before <TT>main()</TT> is called. C doesn't do that. But yes, it's correct to imagine that the memory for static variables is allocated and initialized before <TT>main</TT> is called. --[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:Ummit|talk]]) 15:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Yeah, C++ needs this to enable constructors of objects of global lifetime to run properly. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 18:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

== D ==

Is the paragraph on the D language really necessary in the C article? It seems like a 'See also' link would be enough. --[[User:Ozzmosis|ozzmosis]] 12:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

: It's in the right place. Since C has spawned so many imitators and successors, a "Related/Successor languages" section is appropriate. The paragraph on D someone just added is appropriately brief. The C++ discussion just above should probably be condensed. It would probably be worth adding brief paragraphs on other notable successor languages, including [[Java programming language|Java]] and maybe [[Perl]] and [[JavaScript]]. —[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:Ummit|talk]]) 15:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

::But Objective-C is much closer related to C than D (or even C++) is, still it is not mentioned here... —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:62.178.213.223|62.178.213.223]] ([[User talk:62.178.213.223|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/62.178.213.223|contribs]]) 23:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})

:::[[Sofixit]]! :-) —[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:Ummit|talk]]) 01:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
::: agreed - the D paragraph explicitly says it is making a break from C - so why include it here? There are plenty of languages that are just as close to C or closer than D. The paragraph should be removed.

::::I don't agree. It's useful to have brief mentions of the languages closely related to C. I would include: C++, Objective C, D, Java and maybe C#. The discussion of C++ is too long. It should be about the length of the paragraph on D, with a pointer to the full article. I don't think that "making a clean break" makes a language necessarily more distant. Even though C++ attempts to maintain backwards compatibility with C, in other ways it is more distant from C than is D. In particular, I would say that the lack of multiple inheritance makes D in a significant respect closer to C than C++ is.

::::The point is that there is a small group of languages conceived by their creators as improvements to C (as opposed to languages of a quite different type), and it is useful mention these and give brief summaries of their relationship to C in the C article. The alternative of just listing pointers to the articles about them is inferior in that those articles will not in general focus on the differences from C. We shouldn't force the person who is mainly interested in C and just wants a little bit of context to have to work through those other articles and figure out the differences himself or herself.[[User:Billposer|Bill]] 21:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::Then I'd list Java, C++, Objective-C, C#, Ch, Cyclone, C-- (there are I think several of these) and D (at least). It's misleading to just put C++ and D.
::::::Indeed, if you look at my first paragraph you'll see that I suggested a longer list.[[User:Billposer|Bill]] 08:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

::::It all boils down to what '''"related languages"''' mean. C++ is given, because it is a direct successor to C basically implementing the entire feature-set, and so is Objective-C, which should have an entry. Unless the rubric read '''"other curly-bracket languages"''' (or "languages vaguley remninescent of C in some ways") D shouldn't be featured any more than Java. Especially since the article says that it breaks cleanly with C, which basically only makes it nothing but a curly-bracket language with only superficial similarities with C, just as Java. [[User:Mikademus|Mikademus]] 08:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Edit: I added a section about Onjective-C. Since both C++ and ObjC are supersets of C it makes the D entry even more out of place. [[User:Mikademus|Mikademus]] 08:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

::Perl is more a successor to AWK than to C, don't you think?[[User:Billposer|Bill]] 03:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

== C# ==

''Since some feel that programmers are not encouraged to understand the workings behind C# and the way it handles possible "dangerous" computer tasks, they are expected to trust that C# simply works. Some programmers believe that it is not anywhere nearly as stable as C or C++. C# is often compared and contrasted with C and C++. C# runs on the .NET Framework and was developed by Microsoft.''

I don't have any bias towards Microsoft or any other software development company, but I've never heard of C#'s "stability" being an issue. Since C# is merely a ''language'', any comments about stability don't make any sense (unless you decide to confuse C# with the .NET Framework, which is the underlying virtual machine). Since the .NET Framework itself has gathered a
good reputation for its own speed and stability, I'm not sure where the contributor was trying to go with this. You could probably make a pretty good argument that managed code is actually ''more stable'' than native C, especially with garbage collection and the lack of unsafe pointers.

Either way, though, "some programmers" and "some feel" are a great example of [[WP:AWW|weasel words]], which I think should be avoided. What are your thoughts? [[User:Alexthe5th|Alexthe5th]] 11:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

:I don't see why we need to discuss C# at all: although it happens to have "C" in its name, it is not all that closely related to C (no more closely related to C than Java is, for example). Since the text was pretty poorly written (I agree with the gist of Alexthe5th's comments), I just removed this section. A section on Objective C would be reasonable, as it is closely related to C -- but I think C# is sufficiently far from C it doesn't deserve a whole subsection. [[User:Neilc|Neilc]] 03:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:I agree. C# procures C's syntax and good name to draw attention, not unlike C++ or Java before it, but its semantics are distinctly dissimilar. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 21:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

== Object code and linking ==


This article could do with a cursory reference to other pages describing object code and linking. I think the "Hello World" example gives the misleading impression to a newcomer that the <code>printf</code> function's ''implementation'' is contained in '''stdio.h''', whereas in fact all that is there is a ''declaration'' of the function, that is linked later on.


What's not obvious to a C newcomer is the "compiler" is typically a front end that includes the preprocessor, source to object code compiler, and linker, and that a link to the standard library ( eg: libc.a (Unix), libc.lib (Microsoft) ) is automatically implied.


This concept confused me for a while when I first learned C on a DOS platform, as I assumed that somewhere inside the standard library there must be C code that writes characters to the display, whereas in fact that was written in 8086 assembler calling DOS INT 21, using the correct calling convention, and linked in.


I don't think there needs to be much in-depth discussion on the main page as it sets better on another page specifically covering linking architecture, but a cross reference would be useful.


Thoughts?

--[[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]] 12:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:Good idea. Such an article could/should be written generically, with specific details on specific (i.e. C) languages. [[User:Wlievens|Wouter Lievens]] 12:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:Sounds good to me. [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

== Jokes ==
Blatant jokes should not be placed in serious articles in Wikipedia, regardless of whether the joke is "standard" or not. Wikipedia should aim for a semblance of professionalism, and jokes do nothing to contribute to this. [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 11:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

:Agreed. --[[User:Ozzmosis|ozzmosis]] 12:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

::Disagree. Several articles that I watch have well-crafted bits of humour and levity in them. As long as the humour is either obvious or identified as such, there's nothing that makes that "unencyclopaedic" or even "unprofessional".

::[[User:Atlant|Atlant]] 13:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

:If we are taking a vote, I don't see any reason for a section on "Jokes about C". Also, I've been programming in C for over 25 years, and I've never heard any of those jokes. The only one that I would consider "standard" would be "a high level assembly language". [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 00:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

:Agreed. --[[User:FredricRice|FredricRice]] 12:04, 28 Sep 2007 (UTC)

: One issue is that "C" was supposedly started as a joke, one that got out of hand once the versitality resulted in endless applications actually being written in it. There have been no outright admissions of "C" being started as a joke by KorR but there have been hints. Comments of amusement on how "C" is "still being used" have reportedly been made by KandR on rare occasion. There's been some recognition that the name of the programming language started as a minor joke, though there is what's been called "the existential absurdity of the semicolin" which tends to lend credibility to the suggestion that the language as a whole started as a joke. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.168.158.195|65.168.158.195]] ([[User talk:65.168.158.195|talk]]) 23:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 

::That is one of the most ignorant comments made here yet. No wonder he wanted to remain anonymous. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 05:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

== remove links ==
Can I know why a simple tutorial would be removed ? http://www.alnaja7.org/Programmer/101/itcs_101.htm [[User:Alhoori|Alhoori]] 21:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
: The issue has already been addressed on your talk page. [[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]][[User:Ohnoitsjamie|itsJamie]][[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|Talk]] 22:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
:: You didn't answer ! [[User:Alhoori|Alhoori]] 00:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
::: These are better than http://www.alnaja7.org/Programmer/101/itcs_101.htm ?
: Not to mention that the tutorial is very badly written, making dangerous, unportable and, what is most important, unnecessary assumptions about many things. I won't even go into the dreadful and overzealous colourisation. All in all, it would do more damage than good to a beginner in C. [[User:Dkasak|Denis Kasak]] 14:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

*[http://cslibrary.stanford.edu/101/ Essential C] — Short C guide, great for programmers new to C.
*[http://www.geocities.com/iamtheboredzo/pointers/ Everything you need to know about pointers in C]

== External links arrangement ==

I am new to C, and I have come here to see this article just in order to learn C.
I browsed trough the totorials, and the one that was the easiest to understand (and the most expanded too) was http://www.alnaja7.org/Programmer/101/itcs_101.htm, who appears the last and is not one of the 'recommended' totorials. (by recommended I mean that they are the last and they dont have any notes on them that say they are easy and good.)
Well, what I want to say is that I think that section should be rearranged.
(Sorry if I have any mistakes in my English.)
—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Tapuzi|Tapuzi]] ([[User talk:Tapuzi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tapuzi|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.

:The easiest way to fix this is for you to move the links up and/or add some comments about the site / tutorials. Different people learn different ways, and what is a great tutorial for you might not be so for someone else (and vice-versa), so a brief description of the tutorials would be a help. Also, your english was just fine. [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 13:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:It would probably be more beneficial to you, as a beginner, to stop reading such random tutorials from the 'net because there tends to be a high level of inaccuracy and erroneous information inside. The one you mention is particularly badly written. Instead, go to the library and grab a good book. There are a couple good recommendations in the article itself. [[User:Dkasak|Denis Kasak]] 14:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for the advice. I borrowed a book from a friend which was pretty good, and now I can say that I know C. But from looking back to this toturial - I think that it doesn't miss any important point and also that its pretty much accurate. I admit that the book I read was hard, so I had to use some of my knowledge from this (http://www.alnaja7.org/Programmer/101/itcs_101.htm) tutorial in order to understand a bit of the book. So, in my opinion, this tutorial was and still is a good tutorial, and i think it should take place in this article. [[User:Tapuzi|Tapuzi]] 11:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

::: I deleted this link. The person who made this page keeps inserting links to his own webpages into many articles. I'm not a complete expert in C, but I am in C++ and found that his C++ tutorial is riddled with errors and is of a generally poor quality. Having a quick look at the C tutorial: The classic problem, the data types page implies the size of char, short, int, long, etc. are fixed by the standard. That is wrong. Also RAND_MAX doesn't have to be at least 32767. I didn't look very hard, thats just two common mistakes. I'm not saying it's a bad tutorial, just it's not the best the net has to offer, and I believe it's important to keep the number of tutorial links to a very small number (personally, I'm not entirely convinced they should be there at all... but that's another story). [[User:Mrjeff|Mrjeff]] 12:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
::: I just wanted to add to my previous post, I don't want that post to sound too negative, I'm always glad to see new people getting involved in wikipedia. However, I think it's more useful to spend time improving articles than linking to other people's websites. [[User:Mrjeff|Mrjeff]] 12:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: According to Section 7.20.2.1 of the ISO C Standard "''The value of the '''RAND_MAX''' macro shall be at least 32767.''" [[User:Mickraus|Mickraus]] 15:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== Article too long ==

This article needs to be broken down into parts - it is much too long. For example, the hello world example is unnecessarily long, and I think I will move the step-by-step explanation of it to a new page (perhaps there can be a hello world page, with multiple languages' examples on it). I've archived most of the content that was on this talk page, so I hope that the article can once again be improved upon with coordination. [[User:Fresheneesz|Fresheneesz]] 00:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:I agree, and as for the [[Java programming language|Java]] article, the criticism section should be in a separate article, this article just linking to it and providing only a synthesis of common critics about the language. It now just confuses the reader. I also find rather comic than the [[C_Sharp|C#]] article has no criticisms section at all !! [[User:Hervegirod|Hervegirod]] 09:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

==Libraries Section==

I'm concerned about the new section for libraries that was recently added. To begin with, the description was wrong, but also I'm concerned that it will make an already too long article even longer, with minimal benefit for the main article on C. I would suggest that a new article be started for C programming libraries and a link included in the "See also" section. [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 13:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== VB equivalent ==

Does one interpret the following C construct:

for(i=0; i<end; i++) {
int c = array[i]+1-min;
count[c]++;

in Visual Basic as:

for i=0 to end-1
c = array(i) + (1 - mim)
count(c) = count(c) + 1
next i

 ...[[User:[email protected]|IMHO]] ([[User talk:[email protected]|Talk]]) 15:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, that looks like a fine translation. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 21:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
:: Except that 'min' should be used instead of 'mim' [[User:Mickraus|Mickraus]] 16:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== Featured article candidate: Forth ==

I have put [[Forth (programming language)|Forth]] up as a featured article candidate. Please participate in discussing how it can be made to equal this article in quality. [[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 07:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

== Featured article review ==

Can someone provide a link to the revision of the article that was featured, for comparison?
(I know it's changed a lot since then, so I'd say some review is appropriate.) —[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:Ummit|talk]]) 13:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, the main problem is lack of citations, for which standards have changed since the article was featured. [[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 17:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

== System Programming Citation needed? ==

The assertion that C is the most common language for system programming was flagged as needing a citation. It seems so obvious to me, I'm not sure why anyone would think it needs a citation. Does anyone know another language that might be able to make that claim? [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 21:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

:My '''guess''' would be that the only other contender (besides the debatably-separable C++) would be IBM [[System/360]] through [[Z/OS]] [[Basic assembly language]]. I doubt there's another close contender, although X86 assembler must be right up there, at least if we're considering "programmed units sold".

:[[User:Atlant|Atlant]] 12:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

:Indeed the original designers (K & R) developed C for the purpose of systems programming (Unix). Mainly for portability. The early C libraries were primarily system functions. —[[User:Pelladon|Pelladon]] 07:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

=="Discarded" Operators?==

"C ... was the language that orginally discarded well established operators such as '''and''', '''or''' and = (for equality test)"

Is "discarded" the wrong verb? Is this referring only to the lexical tokens (operator ''symbols'', not operators) used? Perhaps "replaced" would be better, and a mention of what replaced them: &&, ||, ==.

There could also be a clearer comment on why this relatively superficial syntactic issue is significant. Many successful recent languages have copied the syntax of C for logical expressions and assignment.

The meaning of this passage was not obvious to me at first reading, I am unsure if it is really about syntax and symbols. It will probably also be unclear to other (non-native-speaker English) readers, so it should be clarified one way or the other.

[[User:Fbkintanar|Fbkintanar]] 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Cebu City

:I agree that the comment isn't that clear, especially since there were other languages that didn't use '''and''' and '''or''' as well (e.g., FORTRAN used '''.AND.''' and '''.OR.'''). What was significant, however, was the differentiation between equality and assignment, where C used the double equal sign to indicate equality, while many languages of the time didn't differentiate between the two uses. The other significant thing that C did was implement both logical and bitwise '''and''' and '''or''' operators. [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 03:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

== The malloc() example ==

I took out the malloc() example again. It has a large number of problems, and is not really necessary anyways.

int *DynamicArray(int newSize)
{
int *tbl; /* will be a dynamic array */
tbl = malloc(newSize * sizeof(int)); /* allocate memory */
return tbl; /* tbl can be referenced like any array (e.g., tbl[i]) */
}

* While I personally like CamelCase for some functions, this is unidiomatic for C.
* The parameter should be a <code>size_t</code> for any function of this kind.
* No check for NULL. Idiomatic C would be to directly write <code>array = malloc(newSize * sizeof(int));</code>.
* Since tbl ''can'' be NULL, the last comment is actually wrong.
--[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah, I was going to write only the first two lines, but got carried away and decided to write it as a function. I don't like CamelCase either, but the earlier examples on prototypes used it. (I try to follow whatever stylistic standards already exist.)
:I would like to see the code someplace, since there are few places that explain how to create dynamic arrays in C, and many of the text books I've had to use often claim it can't be done, soI have to keep correcting students' papers.
:BTW - it doesn't have to check for NULL, since the caller should test for NULL to determine if the function worked. You are right about <code>size_t</code>, I keep forgetting all the new-fangled stuff they've added to C. ;^) [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::Sure, but if you do not check for NULL, the function is kinda pointless ;-). And you cannot reference <code>tbl[10]</code> if <code>tbl</code> is <code>NULL</code>. If you want to preserve it, I would suggest to move a cleaned-up version into [[malloc]](). It does not really create a dynamic array anyways, just something that looks a lot like one (but then the newfangled C standard now allows real dynamic arrays in local scopes ;-). --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::P.S.: Reading [news:comp.lang.c comp.lang.c] and [news:comp.std.c comp.std.c] is an excellent way to be exposed to any new features and any amount of language lawyering you can wish for. In fact, it's a bit like drinking from a firehose at first ;-).

:::Well, if the function checks for NULL, what would it do? You certainly don't want to terminate the program just because the system is low on memory. Whoever calls a function that returns a pointer should '''always''' check for NULL, so the only reason you need to check for NULL is if you are going to dereference the pointer. I have a friend who maintains it doesn't make sense to check for NULL, since it indicates the program is already in trouble, and will probably crash shortly anyway. ;^)
:::I know about all the new-fangled stuff; I just choose not to bother with them, unless I need to. ;^) Of course, several compiler vendors have made the same decision. ;^)
:::The fact that I had it in malloc() and it was removed suggests it wouldn't last there, either. Oh, well, its in my lecture notes. [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 21:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

== K&R vs ANSI/ISO parameter declarations ==
Hi,

the article states that the way K&R declared parameters and how ISO/ANSI do it is semantically equivalent. This is not quite true. While with the ANSI/ISO way the parameters are indeed passed as the types specified, in the K&R way the parameters are passed as ints and then converted to the types specified. This is required to have a unique way of passing parameters in assembly when there is no declaration. Remeber, in B everything was int.
This gets important at those points where functions are called without the declaration of the function, essentially foobaring up everything.
—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:84.176.241.74|84.176.241.74]] ([[User talk:84.176.241.74|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/84.176.241.74|contribs]]){{#if:12:52, 20 December 2006| 12:52, 20 December 2006|}}.

:Actually when a prototype is not in scope the parameters are passed as promoted types, which include signed or unsigned int, signed or unsigned long int, (for C99 also signed or unsigned long long int), double, (for C89 also long double), structure, union, or a variety of (unaltered) pointer types. It doesn't make sense for the Wikipedia article to try to explain every detail, but if what it now has is badly misleading then it should be fixed. Perhaps the two ways are "semantically similar, although for Standard C argument types are converted to match the prototype while without a prototype in scope argument types may be widened (to at least int or double)." — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 05:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

== Help the newbie ==

I found this on Wikibooks.
<pre>
int dividend = 50;
int divisor = 0;
int quotient;

if(divisor == 0) {
// Handle the error here...
}

quotient = (dividend/divisor);
</pre>

''// Handle the error here...''

Handle the error with what code? Please help me. Thank you. --[[User:193.77.22.121|193.77.22.121]] 16:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

<pre>
fprintf(stderr, "Division by zero attemted, report for termination\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
</pre>
...or in other words, it depends on your application anf what you want to do with this code.
--[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 16:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

== Guidelines for Citations ==

What are the guidelines of when citations are required? The number of citations requested for this article seem silly to me, especially to those of us who have been working with C for a long time. For example, I've been using the term "portable assembly" for many years. Can I cite myself then? The comment about being available for a wide range of platforms is another one, and especially "probably more than any other language in existence". (Why do we need a citation for a "probably"?) Can somebody name another possible candidate for that statement? How many platforms are there that don't support C? I'm all for documenting sources, but this seems a bit much. I'm surprised somebody hasn't flagged the opening sentence as needing a citation. [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 16:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

: :-O You don't understand citations at all ! Please read the introductions of [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:No original research]], ((Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)), [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]] and [[Scientific_method#Elements_of_scientific_method]]. Concerning your points: the term "portable assembly" is incorrect. The correct term is "mashed potatoes". I've been using it to refer to the programming language for many years, and all my friends use it too. Even my uncle has used the term before I was born to refer to C. Can I change it in the article and cite myself ? Also, the probability that C is more widely used is only 16,7%, as a Tibetan monk told me when I travelled to East Mongolia. So it's not that probable. The other candidate for that statement is χπτο, a language created by me, of course. Every country I go they are all using this language. The probability is around 65%, much higher than C, as my uncle told me. I'll cite a few platforms that don't run C. They are all Russian, so I don't know if you have used them:

*ИЕИИОНКЛИДОДКПЕОИКЙЖНЗЙЛДПЖЛДЖТЙЗЗЕСИЛКМТМЕРИЖТМДЙ
*ЖЖДЛЕДПЗЛПЙСМДЕНТРМРРЛРСРЕЛПЕДМИЖМЗОДТСТЗИРПИЙСОЖК
*ТДКПЙОИЙККРЛЖКЛЙЕМРТЛДОЙЗЛОЕНЙДНЙСРЖМЖЛТМПСОЖКЛЗКП
*ОСЗЙОЛИКДТЗЛДДЙРЖСТЖЙЛСЗНЕЕНИЛЙТКЕРММЕКДЛНМЛНЙЙРИИ
*КНИИИЙЙККЖСРМПСЙЙСТПЙККЙТДППИЛДОЕПДЙНРЗДКЖИДЙЖРОЛЗ
*ТЙЖЙОЕРСИНЙПИКМПИНЕЛНЛЕТТЛМИНМТМСЕЙДНОТСИИОМЗОРТИС
*ССРДИИТСММСЛНПЕТЗОНЖНСТИТЖТПМОЕКМССЙЖРОЖСМЖЛПЗСТЙМ
*ЖТСМОИЖЕЛОПМЕРТДЖМИРЗЖЙЙНЕДДЛЙМЕРСНЛОПНЖСРЗЛННТПНЗ
*ДРСЙНТСНТСЛТТИСНЗМРИЖЗЖЙОЗКНЛЕИЛСЖЙДЖОЕЕММЕМИКНМКС
*РДЕТСЗЗИИЖЙННПЗТПРЖИТОСЛОНЙИЖЗОДЗПКЕЛЕКПЗЗРЙТЕПЖСС
*ТИНИЗПСММЕПЗМЛККМСМКОЗОЛМЕДЙПТЗООИТТМРЛЕЙПИСЗОРЗЕЙ
*ОЗМЙЖНКЗТЖННИИКЗОТМОЛСКПИЕСЕИКСТНСПРТЗДСРЕДНРСРМИР
*ЗПЗЕТЛЖРДСИЙСЙОНЖОИНДНОДЗДЙЛМНЙПРМРПЛКНТИЙПНОКПЙЕЛ
*КЖЕННПНДПЖЕЕЙТЕНЖДДПКПМЖКПМЖМЖЕТИОМЙКНРЖЗТОМЙЗЖЛЗН
*ПНКПЗИТРСЛТТТОНТДМНСЖРИЙКЕМДДИЖПЙМДНИТСЖЛИМКТЗЙКЗК
*(...)

As you can see, there are thousands of architectures that don't support C. --[[User:Hdante|hdante]] 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

::Glad to see you have a sense of humor. Hopefully, somebody will answer my question.

::Actually, "portable assembly" is my typo. The term I have been using is "high level assembly language," which pretty much conveys the same meaning. I recall making that comment to Kernighan once, and he didn't contradict me, so I tend to think it is more accurate than "mashed potatoes". ;^)

::Just having a citation isn't always enough, BTW. I've been stuck with several text books that made incorrect statements about C, so citing them as a reference would be misleading. As for NPOV, there are lots of topics where you can cite an article that is very POV. It is also easy to get citations that contradict each other as well. IMHO, the best way to guard against POV is many pairs of eyes and intelligent discussions. [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

:::No, the Wikipedia standard is "Verifiability, not truth". If all the sources say that the world is flat, then Wikipedia must say that the world is flat, because asserting based on our knowledge that the world is round is Original Research. The only way to draw the conclusion that a citation is incorrect is to do your own Original Research, which is not allowed. If citations contradict each other, we include both sides. NPOV doesn't mean '''no''' point of view, it means we report the major points of view without judging which is correct. --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 20:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

== Citations ==

I'm all for citing sources when appropriate, but I don't see the need to cite a source to support a claim like "the [C] language has therefore become available on a very wide range of platforms." By any reasonable definition, that is simply true. I also fail to see how it is POV, as Hdante claims in the revision history. Finally, if you insist on citing sources for border-line situations like these, I think you ought to just go ahead and cite the sources you think would be appropriate, not just lazily scatter <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags throughout the article. <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> is fine when the claim is begging for a citation, but it just clutters up the article in this case, IMHO. --[[User:Neilc|Neilc]] 22:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both ''Wrp103'' and ''Neilc'': system developers and implementors know well that C is the common language most likely available for new hardware or a new processor architecture. There is no need to cite this assertion—though one would be welcome. Likewise, there is no need to support the fact that K&R is the most basic language subset: This is self evident, given C's undisputed history. As for the "ardousness" of the C89 standardization, this is more worthy of a citation (and probably easier to find) than the others but, come on, it was a six year effort with plenty of cooks in the kitchen.... —[[User:EncMstr|EncMstr]] 23:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

:The relevant sentences are:
:* ''Because of simplicity, the language has therefore become available on a very wide range of platforms'' - I don't agree that simplicity is the point here. I think it has became available on a range of platforms because its source was available and there was sharing among universities. Since the factual acuracy of the sentence can become dubious just by using a point of view, then it's obvious that the sentence itself has a point of view and needs a citation.
:* ''K&R C was often considered the most basic part of the language that a C compiler must support'' - how often ? who often considered that ? this sentence doesn't mean anything because of the weasel words. It could only make sense with a citation
:* ''After a long and arduous process'' - It was not arduous. It was a really simple and happy process.
:* ''C compilers exist for nearly all processors and operating systems'' - [[WP:WEASEL]], [[WP:PEACOCK]]
:* ''and most C compilers output is well optimized'' - blablabla

:Concerning scattering <code>fact</code>s throughout the article: nothing cited is borderline, the <code>fact</code>s were not inserted in random places, I don't have, by any means, to seek any information that I or anybody else would ever want and finally: with or without <code>fact</code>s cluttering the text, the text either doesn't cite sources or doesn't agree to a neutral point of view. The absence of indication can't hide the low quality content of the article. Believe-me: it's better when an article says "I suck" than when it just sucks (why ?).

:* ''system developers and implementors know well that C is the common language most likely available for new hardware or a new processor architecture''{{Fact|date=March 2007}} [[WP:WEASEL]], [[WP:AXS]]

:* --[[User:Hdante|hdante]] 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

::*I agree that simplicity wasn't the main reason C was available on a number of platforms, although if it were hard to write a C compiler things might have been different. Originally it was because, if you could create a basic C compiler, you could have a complete OS for your new hardware, since Unix was pretty much totally written in C. Once gcc came along, it was extremely easy to create a C compiler for a new hardware platform, since gcc supported cross-compilations fairly easily.

::*In the early days, if you were a C compiler vendor but if you didn't support K&R C, then you need not bother trying to sell your product. That was the "bare necessities" of C compilers. K&R was the only official document for the C language, so each compiler had to support K&R at a minimum. Can anyone come up with an example of a C compiler that had any kind of market penetration, but didn't support K&R? Even after ANSI C came out, the compilers still had to support K&R because of the large code base already written in K&R. In fact, I have a routine available on my web site that is still written in K&R ... I've never bothered to convert it to ANSI because it works fine the way it is.
:::Supporting K&R C wasn't a big deal, C vendors were busy adding more and more features because of competition and a desire to improve on C (hint: performance). ANSI C incorporated a lot of those improvements (like ''assert''). —[[User:Pelladon|Pelladon]] 07:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Then your memories are distinctly different than mine. I recall once when we refused to buy a new model from one of our mainframe vendors because it didn't fully support K&R. A NULL pointer wasn't zero, but had some addressing info in the higher bits. As a result, if you used something like <code>if (ptr)</code>, a NULL pointer would not return a false. We told them that was unacceptable. There was too much existing code that used that construct.

::::Any compiler that didn't support K&R was immediately disqualified for any purchasing decision. As for enhancements, when I wrote the coding standards for a project, I explicitly said not to use extensions, since that would lock them into that vendor. Performance was more a function of the hardware, not the compiler. Remember, back then there wasn't any common platform that everyone used. We didn't even have a single form of Unix, so we had to code for BSD/System V differences. If you depended on a particular compiler vendor, then you could only purchase the hardware that they supported, which removed one of the big arguments in favor of Unix. [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 13:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::I didn't realize that there were vendors that didn't support K&R, I'm surprised they did that (especially in the early days). —[[User:Pelladon|Pelladon]] 05:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

::*It took 6 years to develop the C standard, and a fair amount of negotiation had to take place to make sure everybody was happy with the result. So long doesn't seem to be much of a stretch, although I'm not convinced about arduous. Is there any citation about the process being simple and happy?

::*But C compilers do exist for most platforms and operating systems. If you were to make a list of the platforms/OS combinations that didn't support C, it would be very easy to come up with a much longer list of those that do.

::*C has long been recognized as being highly optimized, especially since gcc came along with excellent optimizations options. Since the C language is small and simple, compiler output, (even without any optimization) tended to be smaller and faster than most high level languages in the early days (you should have seen the original code generated by PL/I!). In fact, it is only recently that a case has been made that maybe C isn't as optimized as some think, as can be found in [http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/18/0146216 this SlashDot article], and that is mostly because of hardware features that are hard to take advantage of in C.
:::That is, compared to BASIC and LISP. All serious numerical processing was done in FORTRAN until the development of the standard c math library, and any Pascal compiler was more optimised than any C compiler. C optimisation didn't really start until they got the bugs out of their parsers, and even then it was limited by the separate-object compilation model and the lack of meta-data.—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:150.101.166.15|150.101.166.15]] ([[User talk:150.101.166.15|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/150.101.166.15|contribs]]) 08:13, 10 July 2007

::::On the original PDP-11 platform, the small process address space prevented implementing extensive analysis of (internal representations of) programs; besides, given the efficient mapping of C constructs onto PDP-11 instructions, the simple peephole instruction optimization and branch optimization resulted in very good code. Any "parser bugs" were unrelated to optimization. The main obstacle to optimization of C code is the possibility of "aliases" via pointers, which prevents a higher degree of caching in fast registers. C99 addressed that to some extent with restrict qualification, and the C standard also supports type-based nonaliasing assumption which helps. Many modern C compilers on many platforms do an excellent job of optimization. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 14:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::Where I teach (PSU Great Valley), we assume that all students taking IT classes know C. They may not be an expert, but the basic remedial programming classes are taught in C, and the assumption is that anyone who has been programming for any amount of time has run across C. (And if they haven't, they can pick it up fairly quickly.) Even though C isn't really meant for beginners, it is still taught for intro classes in many schools. I have a "Programming for Poets" type class that I put together that uses a combination of C and VB.

::With the possible exception of some highly specialized embedded systems, I think you would have a hard time coming up with a decent sized list of platforms/systems that don't support C. If somebody can produce such a list, I would be interested in seeing it. [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 04:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Without getting into details, I was involved in a similar fight for citations on [[Programming language]]. Basically, I feel that Wikipedia policy is that many things that you "know" are true (perhaps due to professional experience) still need to be cited. Remember the policy of "Verifiability, not truth". This article recently was removed as a Featured Article primarily for lack of citations, so it certainly needs more. I also do not agree that it is lazy to add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags without finding the citations yourself. In the past I have had success getting people to find citations once I explicitly listed where they were needed. --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 05:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

:Concerning wrp103 response: it's obvious that you didn't understand what I've meant. I don't really agree or disagree with any "fact" I have written here in the talk page. Actually I agree with some things that I've tagged as needing citation, which means '''absolutely nothing''' to Wikipedia. Please, read again my arguments, having in mind that if such weak "facts" that I've written here were able to start a discussion, then the main article could not possibly be in a neutral point of view. --[[User:Hdante|hdante]] 12:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

::BTW (offtopic) There's no sense in talking that the C compiler is more or less optimizing. AFAICT, two-pass compilers just can't compete in optimization with multiple-pass (front end/back end) compilers. And multiple pass compilers use an intermediate representation to handle their data, so that it's independent of programming language. Early compilers were simple, not optimizing. Simplicity and optimization are not friends. I don't know what have you done in compiler optimization, but your talk seems to be outdated. --[[User:Hdante|hdante]] 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

:My experience is actually that C is extremely difficult to optimize. It's only been optimized as much as it has due to a great deal of focused research on procedural programs in particular, which is largely because of C's predominance. Early compilers certainly struggled to optimize even simple C programs due to complex issues of potential aliasing due to pointers, variables with long live ranges, and so on. I think if we're going to construct a discussion of why C programs are often more efficient than similar programs written in other languages, it should focus primarily on the level of detailed control given to the programmer, the efficiency of its primitive operations, the lack of overhead from a runtime infrastructure, and so on. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 20:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

::Which is similar to what I was trying to say. Because the language was simple, the output tended to be more compact than more ambitious languages. For example, early PL/I compilers would translate something like <code>if (a<b) x=y</code> into 25-30 lines of machine instructions. I couldn't believe it the first time I looked at it, but because of all the various options within PL/I, and the fact that it wasn't too good at type checking, much of the code was spent determining the type of each variable, what option(s) were being used, as well as determining the correct operators. Compared to many other languages, C doesn't do that much "behind the scenes". The translation from source code to machine language is pretty straight forward.

::Also remember that the things many people think about when discussing compiler optimizations these days weren't even dreamt about, let alone attempted, during the early days. Sometimes we were happy if the program worked correctly. I remember having a problem with a PL/I program shortly after the language was released. The solution was to rearrange the order of some functions. I was told: "Sometimes that fixes things!" ;^) [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 21:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

:Hello ? If nobody has anything else to say, I'm reverting the article. --[[User:Hdante|hdante]] 14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

::You might want to wait for an answer when you ask a question. [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

All this 'citations needed' stuff is ridiculous. The things demanding citations are not contentious at all. I have to think that the people demandinsg them are citation trolls. The whole thing makes wikipedia look like a big fat joke. - [[User:RichardAdams|RichardAdams]]

: Okay, I have addressed the "need citations" issue by rewording the statements in question into less controversial forms. In some cases, parts of the text was redundant with other statements elsewhere in the article, so I eliminated those redundancies. I don't think I lost any significant information, and I think the rewording is generally clearer. Since there are now plenty of references and no remaining flagged disputes about factual matters, I removed the "references" tag. If there are still disputes, feel free to add back some flags, but perhaps first you should discuss the specific issues. [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 23:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

== Reasons for not promoting ==

Hi all,

I was very close to promoting this article to a good article. But I felt it was still in a state of transition and needed some further refining. My two main suggestions are:

* Fix the citation tags.
* Move the criticism section (4 screens worth) to a sub-page and summarize it in the main article.

[[User:Cedars|Cedars]] 00:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

: Since when has there been this disturbing trend to move only criticism off to a subpage? If anything, a discussion of pros and cons must take place -- not outright criticism. [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 00:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Maybe it is my fault. I have done this for the Java criticisms section, because it has become very long and confusing for the reader and some of the critics could really be objected. I think we should have a normalized way to deal with pro and cons for computer languages. Some of them have no criticism sections at all : ADA, Basic, Fortran, C#, Python, Perl, Ruby (almost no critics). Some of them have several pages of them (this is the case for Java, and for C). The length of the criticism section does not say anything about what are the real cons for a language, so I think that to have a standard way to present pros and cons would be fair. [[User:Hervegirod|Hervegirod]] 23:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

: I agree with the idea that the criticisms section is unduly long compared to the rest of the article, and could be moved to a new (sub)article "Criticisms of C", with a summary mention of some of the main complaints. I think the citation policy is being carried to an unreasonable extreme here; except for the bit about optimization (which I think has rightly been removed), the flagged statements about C's ubiquity and significance are generally well established in the industry and known as such by personal experience of several independent contributing editors, who have as much credibility as any reference that could be cited, such as a survey in some trade magazine. (Such studies usually exhibit poor statistical methodology anyway.) If an article were to say that the Sun is very bright, would a citation be required? [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 10:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

: I also think the "hello, world" example would be better as a separate, linked subarticle. [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 10:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
:: Speaking of the hello world example, the function prototype should be int main(int argc, char **argv). Is there a specific reason not to have this?[[User:Kreca|Kreca]] 10:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
::: Both int main(void) and int main(int argc, char **argv) are equally valid definitions. If you are not going to use argc and argv, then why bother defining them?[[User:Mrjeff|Mrjeff]] 09:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
:::: That's right (there are these two distinct valid interfaces for main, according to the C standard), and even worse than that C99 allows the return to be omitted (for main only), automatically assuming return 0. I don't think it is useful to explore that in an introductory article. [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
:: Turns out that there is already a "[[hello world program]]" article, more general than just about the C example, so separating out the "hello, world" section would be problematic. [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 20:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

: I moved the criticisms section to a separate article. It would benefit from some slight clean-up, in particular I didn't (yet) summarize the criticisms in the main page, just inserted a link to the new article. After that is done, the C article should be re-submitted as a "Good article". [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 21:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
:: I cleaned up the remaining "Criticism" section a bit more. It may be good enough to try resubmitting as a "Good article" now. I haven't yet done that, in order to provide some time for evaluation of the changes and discussion, if necessary. [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 04:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

: Doing so is not in adherance with NPOV, unless you title the page differently, and include countering viewpoints. Any page including criticism must be balanced or Wikipedia takes a non-neutral view on a topic, which is not permitted. [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 04:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::That is a misunderstanding of [[WP:NPOV]]. [[C programming language, criticism]] does not criticise C, it describes existing criticism of C (and, from a glance, in a reasonably neutral manner, neither endorsing nor rejecting this criticism). Moving this to a seperate article is fine. I don't know if the name is perfect, but the concept is ok. It could use some sources, though. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 06:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::: No. Presenting only criticism without response or other positive views is unbalanced and hence presents a one-sided view on a topic. That is not NPOV. [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 12:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:::: Note first of all that I did not create the C criticism text — it was already embedded within the main C programming language article, and I was merely responding to the requirement expressed at the start of this discussion topic that the criticism be moved to a separate page. Next, note that Stephan is correct in his observation that the criticism text ''is'' merely reporting on a factual matter, and is fairly well balanced, not just negative POV. Indeed, as one of the oldest proponents of C and a longstanding member of its standards committee, if I thought it had been too negative I would have added some counterbalancing comments to it. You can do so yourself if you think it necessary. What I am looking for feedback on is the act of moving that text to a separate article, not the (pre-existing) content of that text, which by the way now has its its own discussion page. [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::: I'm not opposed to having the text. I'm opposed to it being the only thing in the criticism article (because, as I've outlined, doing so without balance isn't NPOV). There is no very strong reason that I can think of for having content based on analysis in another article. And as you suggest, I intend to look over the article for problems when I have some time. [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::: Note the very first entry in this section, which seems like a pretty clear requirement to move the criticism section to a separate page. I think links are a useful tool for reducing clutter in main-line text. Also, the criticism section does have a fair amount of balance — and it really is undeniable that several of C's characteristics can be problematic for some people in some contexts, so the overall gist of such a section ''has'' to seem somewhat "negative". I did find a less-than-balanced piece of it a day or two ago and made it more neutral. Further contributions would be welcome, but let's try not to turn the criticisms article into a debate. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 05:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: I wasn't planning to. I haven't had a chance to have a close read of the article, but if the article is as balanced as you say, then there's no need to call the article a criticism of C, but more an analysis of the language with issues that people have found. [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 07:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Criticism is not necessarily negative! --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 08:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::: This is true, but it's most common connotation is negative, and may be construed as such. That is undesirable. [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 12:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

== Forth is lower than c ==

Forth is used quite a lot in bios or embedded devices where size is a issue. The new intel and amd64 are apparently written in plain c.
[[User:Allix|Allix]] Fri Sep 1 13:59:01 BST 2006

: So how is this supposed to bear on the C article? Also, your second sentence makes no sense. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 08:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

==Requested move==
[[C programming language]] → [[C (programming language)]]
– Conformance with WP naming conventions [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]×[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]
'''Note:''' Please notice the below info box. This is not a poll about C specifically, but about PLs in geeneral, many (but not all) of which use the pattern "FOO programming language" rather than the general WP disambiguation pattern "FOO (programming language)".

{{Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages/Renaming poll}}

== Burroughs MCP use of ALGOL? ==

I thought MCP was written primarily in ESPOL, which was a proprietary SIL that somewhat resembled ALGOL. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 09:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
: I checked the reference manuals, and ESPOL is closely enough related to ALGOL that there is no need to adjust the current statement in the article. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 21:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

==Failed GA nomination==
I failed this article due to the fact that there are only nine references for a 49 kilobyte article. Besides that, it's great! [[user:Some P. Erson|Some P.]] [[User:Some P. Erson/Esperanza|E]][[User:Some P. Erson|rson]] 00:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

==Hello, world example==
I tried using two different compilers (VS and gcc) and neither compiled ''main() { printf("Hello world"); }''. They both assumed that main was an int and both assumed a default return value of 0, however they didn't "auto-include" ''stdio.h'', and therefore they both gave a ''printf() not defined'' error. Are you sure that it is correct? Did anyone try to compile it? --[[User:Swalot|Swalot]] 00:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

: If you would have read the article closely, you would have seen these sentences: ''The above program will compile correctly on most modern compilers that are not in compliance mode. However, it produces several warning messages when compiled with a compiler that conforms to the ANSI C standard, and won't compile at all if the compiler strictly conforms to the C99 standard.''
: The example following it is presumably what you want. [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 01:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:: I did read it closely, and that's why I used the most recent versions of VS and GCC, without the ANSI flag. And it wasn't a warning, it was an error. --[[User:Swalot|Swalot]] 02:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::: gcc accepts it fine:
$ cat > test.c
main() { printf("blah\n"); }
$ gcc test.c
test.c: In function 'main':
test.c:1: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'printf'
$ ./a.out
blah
::: and that was from gcc 4.0.3. Not including header files doesn't mean that your program can't be linked. [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 02:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:::: ok, sorry then :( --[[User:Swalot|Swalot]] 03:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::::: Don't be sorry, at least we've resolved the matter :) [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 05:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
: Note that the first form of the program was meant to illustrate what C was typically like in pre-Standard days. Perhaps that should be made clearer. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 06:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

== C ==

Sir
Since default data type of pointer variable is int, then how can it store value more than 32667.
your faithfully
Neeraj Pandey

: This page is for discussions about the Wikipedia article "C (programming language)". Questions about C programming should be posted to the net newsgroup comp.lang.c instead. However, the simple answer is that your statement is wrong: pointer variables have their own specific types, which are never type "int", and while many C implementations do allow pointer values to be converted to and from some integer type without loss of information, that type isn't necessarily plain "int". Also, on many platforms type int can represent values much larger than 32767. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 19:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

: Anyway, pointers can store calues till 65535 on 16-bit compilers or 4294967295 on 32-bit compilers. On 16 bit compilers, writing this should work: int far *n = 0 ; --[[User:200.126.153.25|200.126.153.25]] 21:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

== C++ superset of C ==

Unless my memory is going, the original implementation of C++ was a preprocessor that translated the language into C, and then it was compiled with a regular C compiler. That is why I said it was originally a superset of C. Of course, saying it is nearly a superset of C is correct regardless of the state of my memory. ;^) [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 21:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

:It is true that early implementations of C++ (and its forerunner "C with classes") used a preprocessor. However, they ''completely'' parsed the source language, and interpreted some things differently from how C compilers interpret them, so that the generated C source text was often not just a simple "copy through" of the C++ program source text. For example, "extern int foo();" declared the function as definitely not accepting any arguments (what is now known as "extern int foo(void);" in Standard C), whereas in C the same syntax has always declared the function as having unknown argument types. Also, character constants 'x' have type char in C++ but type int in C. There are other differences, too; see [http://david.tribble.com/text/cdiffs.htm Tribble's page] for more detail. There is a "common subset" of C and C++ that some programmers try to remain within, so that their code works under compilers for either language. But it's smaller than "all of C". — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 06:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:: Some versions of C++ still output C, and then expect you to compile that using a C compiler. However, some Haskell compilers do the same, and I don't think anyone would claim that Haskell is a superset of C :) [[User:Mrjeff|Mrjeff]] 10:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::C++ came about before ANSII C, so the compiler didn't complain about how many arguments were used. What you are describing might be how some C++ compilers work now, but it wasn't the way the first OO versions of C worked. [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 14:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::: Well the first C++ compiler was Cfront. [http://public.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#bootstrapping] describes how it worked. The "C with classes" compiler could be described as you say, but the first compiler for C++ did it's own checking. [[User:Mrjeff|Mrjeff]] 16:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::: Yes, Pringle is simply wrong. The relevant "compiler" is the C++-to-C translator, not the back-end C compiler; the Haskell example should illustrate the point that one can't infer any similarities between the two languages just from the preprocessing construction. Even "C with classes" did function parameter type checking (at least within a translation unit). The types were also enforced for external names via the "name mangling" that embedded that type information into the interface, so that a mismatch would be caught by the linker.

== A small set (around 30) of reserved keywords ==
Technically correct, and true in it's original context (as a system language), but a bit misleading. Look for example at the "Hello World" example. Is that written in C? With C? or what? Which part of C is sprintf? And if it's not part of C, why is it the classic example? Which part of the 'characteristics' section tells you that standard C includes standard libraries? I don't have a solution, but there is a disconect between that typical definition of C, and the language as actually used: that definition is of only technical importance, and not related to the language being demonstrated, which has hundreds of key words, which you can redefine, but don't.
[[User:218.214.148.10|218.214.148.10]] 01:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:C is fairly cleanly partitioned into: preprocessor, language, and library. This should probably be made clearer at the start of the "characteristics" list. [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 20:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::218.214.148.10, the use of library functions was well-known by the 1970's, where a library call was understood not to be part of the language, but a call to a facility provided by the operating environment, which tremendously simplifies the programming, and allowed a clean separation between implementation and language design. Some examples of this point of view can be found in languages like [[Jovial]], which had ''no'' I/O. Thus ''Hello, world'' was an advance, because you could write a program without also writing the I/O library. See [[Free On-line Dictionary of Computing]] for more of this type of CS history. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
:::So sprintf is understood to be a call to the operating environment? That may have been true for a VAX, but it's not a helpful statement about C in general. (david) [[User:150.101.166.15|150.101.166.15]] 02:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Actually, sprintf is a call to the run-time environment, not the O/S. Section 2 were generally O/S calls, while section 3 functions were to the runtime. -- [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] [[User talk:wrp103|(Talk)]] 04:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

== relatively simple compiler ==

"Among its design goals were that it could be compiled in a straightforward manner using a relatively simple compiler,"

Is that supported by the historical documentation? (please excuse my ignorance). If so, what was it in comparison to? There seems to be pretty general agreement that regardless of the original design goals, C actually requires a comparatively complex compiler. (Or you can use a restricted C compiler. Or you can use a C compiler with wrong bits.)

Which falsifies the next bit "As a result, C code is suitable". Regardless of the historical design goals, C requires a complex compiler. Compiler simplicity is not why it is suitable for system design tasks. If simplicity of compiler was the criteria, FORTRAN or Pascal would be more suitable, which in general they are not. [[User:218.214.148.10|218.214.148.10]] 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:Well, C evolved from relatively simple beginnings. The main contributor to the rapid spread of C on other than the original PDP-11 platform was undoubtedly the development of the "Portable C Compiler", which drastically reduced the amount of work needed to create a C compiler for a different target architecture. There were several stages in the evolution of the PCC, too.Of course these days everybody uses GCC for a similar purpose. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 23:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:: A possible relevant comparison would be [[PL/1]] (the original application for C was to be the implementaion language for Unix, whose predecessor [[Multics]] was written in PL/1), which by all accounts was a horribly complex language to write a compiler for. C, and especially early K&R C, is in fact rather simple to compile. A graduate student equipped with a LALR parser generator could probably implement a working compiler for K&R C from scratch in a few months. It wouldn't produce terribly good code by today's standards, mind you. (Newer versions of the language have added some complications, of course - e.g. parsing complex declarators in the presence of typedef names is not for weenies). Much of the relevant competition in the early 1970's need quite ad-hoc parsers and do not have the clean separation between core language and library that make C compilers so simple. Your suggestion that FORTRAN compilers would be simpler to write than C ones strikes me as so wrong I don't even know where to start refuting it. [[User:Henning Makholm|Henning Makholm]] 05:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:In my experience (which goes way back and includes FORTRAN and C compiler construction), constructing a compiler for FORTRAN versus C around 1975 would have required roughly the same amount of work, assuming a reasonably clean ISA. Fortran's run-time support library would have been somewhat larger, since it couldn't use early C's trick of mapping shorter data types into longer ones, and also had to support built-in I/O facilities. (For a fairer comparison, one should add at least the stdio package to the implementation.) There were contemporaneous languages that had features that required more complicated compilation, e.g. "thunks" for some procedure parameters in Algol. Even so, building a whole compiler from the ground up would still require a simialr amount of work. The actual attribute of C that I think should be mentioned instead is, C programs had a "transparency", such that one could pretty much predict the machine code that would result from a given source, especially on the PDP-11. Without built-in exponential (FORTRAN **) and array operators, there was little or no hidden execution cost in C source code; if an algorithm took yay many patent source-code operations, it took a comparable number (expanded by some small factor, on the order of 2) of machine operations. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:: I second your opinion on the "transparency" of C code, that's one of the reasons why C could be compared to a portable (machine independent) assembly language. /[[User:HenkeB|HenkeB]] 16:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::: I reject your opinion on the "transparency" of C code. I am using gcc for embedded applications, and the code emitted is both unpredictable, and less predictable than other languages I have used. Is this because I am using gcc? (It is very poor at selecting registers) In any case, it compares very poorly for predictability and line-optimisation with other languages I used c1987.—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:150.101.166.15|150.101.166.15]] ([[User talk:150.101.166.15|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/150.101.166.15|contribs]]) 05:55, 10 July 2007

:::There was of course no hidden execution cost for array operators: have you ever looked at the code generated?

:::C was not compared to a macro assembly language because of it's "transparency" by anyone who knew macro assembly languages: that's laughable. Nor was it compared to a macro assembler by the people who built and used it: they fought against that characterisation. It was compared to macro assembler by it's enemies, because of it's lack of features.

::::To the contrary, on its original platform (PDP-11 Unix), C programmers generally could predict just what machine code would be emitted for their C constructs, and since the compiler's code optimization was relatively limited, they often chose their C constructs specifically to ensure that certain code would be produced. For example, do..while with decrement for its condition, to make sure that a SOB looping instruction was generated. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 14:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:218.214.148.10, For some historical documentation, there are implementations of C which were based on recursive-descent [[parser]]s, such as [[Small-C]] (Ron Cain 1980) which were useful for the early microprocessors (no floating-point values), and which are still in use for embedded systems. See [[Dr. Dobb's Journal]] for Ron Cain's work. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:I believe that first compilers were simple. There are current compilers that support this fact. In particular, the Obfuscated Tiny C Compiler that was made for the 2002 [[IOCCC]] has a little more than 2048 bytes source code. Also, its evolution, [[tcc]] is a pretty much complete C compiler, assembler and linker has a 100 KB binary executable. --[[User:Hdante|hdante]] 12:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

::Tiny C was designed to be exactly that subset of C for which a simple compiler was possible. Thus, the mere fact of Tiny C might indicate that C itself is too much for a simple compiler. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 00:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Or one could say that Tiny C was designed to be compiled in a straightforward manner using a relatively simple compiler, relative to C. :) – [[User:Smyth|Smyth]]\[[User talk:Smyth|talk]] 16:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

== Negativity of this article ==

Am I the only one taken by the overwhelming negativity of this article? All it seems to cover is its limitations rather than its strengths, and what features it lacks and criticism but barely highlights its upsides and that many of the so called criticisms are intentional design decisions. Every other sentence seems to be "C doesn't have such-and-such". Contrast this to [[Pascal (programming language)]] or [[Python (programming language)]], where there is barely any criticism. I feel having the sheer amount of negativity leaves the impression that C is a 'bad' language and as such this isn't a neutral article. -[[User:Halo|Halo]] 12:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
:I wrote the negative sections of this article and C is my favourite language. This may have to do with some of the more positive sections being moved out to other articles. In any case I don't think there's a POV problem - although we could certainly do with more information on its successes. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 12:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
::C attracts criticism partly because it is so successful. Its success is also mentioned in the article. A while back I moved the Criticisms section to a separate article to restore some balance. C is like a sharp knife: preferred by expert whittlers, but dangerous in unskilled hands. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 04:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

:Hi, I think you are right. It would be more encyclopedic if we concentrated on what C can do and move most criticism to its own section or [[Criticism of the C programming language]]. This may improve the article quality and simplify some sections. --[[User:Hdante|hdante]] 21:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

::Generally I agree; for example the list of features that C lacks could be merged into the [[Criticism of the C programming language]] article, leaving in the main C article the list of features that C ''has''. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 06:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I would also like to remark that a lot of the criticism, particularly listing features that C lacks, seems POV and slightly misses the point of the language. Criticising C for not having built in garbage collection is like criticising Python/PHP for not having pointers - it's true, it's accurate, but kinda misses the point -[[User:Halo|Halo]] 09:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:This kind of criticism may be simplified if we say that C is often used as an application language, instead of a system language and then give examples of such criticisms (like lack of garbage collector) to show that people miss the point. However, I don't have a reference to back it up. --[[User:Hdante|hdante]] 11:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

== Binary operator associativity ==
I could swear saw some code demonstrating that certain lines' output (something like "a++ + ++a") was not defined/compiler specific because the associativity of + and * is not specified. Yet this article lists them all as L->R associativity... Is this correct? The samples I saw may have been C++ but I don't think the languages differ in this area. [[User:AllUltima|AllUltima]] 00:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Operator precedence and sequence points are separate concepts. a++ + ++a is undefined because a is modified twice without an intervening sequence point. The associativity of the operators is unimportant. [[User:Pfaffben|Pfaffben]] 05:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)blp

Pfaffben is right about them being different concepts; pre- and post-increment dont really fit into the precedence table well because pre- and post-increment are different beasts depending on where the same syntax sugar is placed. The FAQ's for [http://c-faq.com/expr/evalorder2.html C] and [http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/misc-technical-issues.html#faq-39.15 C++] both address this exact scenario of more than one [[increment]] operator without [[sequence point]]s. Enjoy the read. [[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] 07:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

== C99 - Variables can be declared anywhere ??? ==

Is it true?
I believed that it is correct only in С++.

Visual Studio 2005 shows errors while compiling this code:
<pre>
int main(){
int a;
a = 10 * 2;

int b = a;

return 0;
}

main.c(5) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ';' before 'type'
</pre>

Maybe it is a mistake in the article?
[[User:ILYAki|ILYAki]] 09:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
: It is clear in the C99 standard that it is possible (see reference I added in the C99 paragraph). It works perfectly well in DevC++ (using GCC). The problem is with VS, which is not at par with the C99 standard (this is stated in the article, C support is not as good as for C++ in Visual Studio). So I think it is another compiler incomplete support for the latest C99 standard. [[User:Hervegirod|Hervegirod]] 10:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for reference, now I see it.[[User:ILYAki|ILYAki]] 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

==Importance assessment==
I don't know why this article is rated as "Mid" (Subject fills in more minor details). I rather think that being what C is for computer programming, it should be rated "High" (Fortran is "High", and C is as important for the history of software than Fortran, may be much, considering that C influenced many more languages, and was fundamental to Unix, and then Linux) [[User:Hervegirod|Hervegirod]] 10:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:I wondered the same thing. Certainly C is considered by many as being an essential language for people to know. At [[Penn State Great Valley]], where I teach, we assume that all students are familiar with the language, since it is taught for the remedial programming course. [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] [[User talk:wrp103|(Talk)]] 23:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

::I agree that C is very important for computing science in some sense, certainly at least as much as Fortran. I'm not sure what the ''use'' of the "importance" ranking is supposed to be; maybe to select a subset of articles for inclusion when making a CD? Anyway, I've changed it to "high" now. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

== Compiler ==

What is the best compiler for beginners?

--[[User:Drnoitall.hello|Drnoitall.hello]] 04:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:The answer you get will vary depending on a number of things, depending on what you mean by beginners - beginner programmers or programmers starting to learn C. It also depends on what platform you are dealing with. Most Unix / Linux systems come with a C compiler, so that is probably the one to use. There are a number of C compilers for Windows - free and otherwise, so it depends on your budget. Probably gcc is the most common C compiler that will run on a wide variety of platforms. Turbo C is a commercial compiler used to be very popular. If you have Microsoft Studio, then you probably already have Visual C++, which is windows-oriented, but is generally acceptable for console applications.

:It might make sense to include something in the article that addresses that question. [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] [[User talk:wrp103|(Talk)]] 11:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

== Source language = C formatting ==

The recent change to the formatting of the examples results in really ugly presentation (at least under Firefox on Solaris). The coloring and emboldening seems to be applied capriciously; e.g. in "extern int" the extern is in bold but int is normal. Strings are in red for no apparent reason, and the shade of green used for preprocessor directives is hard to read. I suggest that this be changed back to the former style. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

: Agreed. This looks hideous. –[[User:Henning Makholm|Henning Makholm]] 21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::I agree, and have reverted to before the formatting changes. -- [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] [[User talk:wrp103|(Talk)]] 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::* Maybe this would be a reason to try to improve the lang=C style itself, instead of completely dropping it? — [[User:Isilanes|Isilanes]] 08:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::: What's there to improve? The <pre> style is perfect for showing code examples. Anything that diverges from it will be a loss. –[[User:Henning Makholm|Henning Makholm]] 18:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Agreed. Plain courier text has been used for ages and people are used to it. If we were to use the style guide, we would run the risk of pages looking uglier and uglier with little or no warning. At least everyone agrees what <nowiki><pre></nowiki> should look like. ;^) -- [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] [[User talk:wrp103|(Talk)]] 19:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::Well, I personally think [[syntax highlighting]] is a great idea. I think it's pretty logic to assign different colours to different kinds of words. The only reason the green is hard to read is because of the grey background color. Maybe this should be fixed, by replacing it with a darker green, or the background with a lighter grey. And "extern" is some kind of a keyword, right? "int" is a variable type, right? So it's two different words. Two different colours. Makes sense here. Also, maybe your [[gamma balance]] is not set correctly. --[[User:Ysangkok|Ysangkok]] 19:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::"extern" and "int" are both keywords. Some of us find the highlighting distracting, even if it weren't quite so unaesthetic. (My gamma balance is fine.) Note that coloring is not part of the C language, so presenting C programs using colors is misleading anyway. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 17:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::There are probably arguments for and against syntax highlighting, especially for those who have only used IDEs that use such conventions. The problem I have with it is that there is no convention that all can agree upon. One problem with colors is that it can pose problems for people who are color blind, and when printed, the color might go away. I can see an argument for bold text to indicate reserved words, but at the same time I don't see any real reason to use anything other than the standard <nowiki><pre></nowiki> tag. -- [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] [[User talk:wrp103|(Talk)]] 23:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

== A New Article Added ==

I have added a link to a article abt c programming prerequiste knowledge.

Its a gigantic exhaustive article abt the things a top notch c programmer must have in his mind.

You can view it at http://www.cencyclopedia.com/Tutorials/Basic_Tutorials/Prerequisite_Knowledge.php

If possible please rate it. Also discuss its quality and quantity.

== New Category of external links ==

Added a new category of external links for advance topics of applying C.

C is not only abt leaarning basics but also about building applications and games and other commercial viable softwares.

:No, such programming is certainly not specific to C, and while the links may be useful to some we need to draw the line somewhere. If everything on the net involving C is linked into the C article, it would be massive! — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 14:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== Games Programming Step By Step Tutorial ==

Added first 2 of many Games Programming Step By Step Tutorial in C.

These create tic tac toe and ping pong, first games ever to be developed for computers, remember ATARI.

These articles are targeted from begineers and to experts.

Though they are not very portable as most of the games are not, because of the graphic library and drivers used the software they use are easily available and tutorial provides all inforamtion neccessary.

This a step by step tutorial in which code is developed in step by step with the reader.

It also teaches many advance programming concepts.

They are design to iginite sparks of creativity in begineers C programmers and help them see how wonderfull and enjoyment filled world of games programming is.

Let them feel that it is far more fun to create them than to play them.

links to them are -

http://www.cencyclopedia.com/Tutorials/Games_Programming/TicTacToe.php
http://www.cencyclopedia.com/Tutorials/Games_Programming/PingPong.php

Thanks You

Any comments are appreciated.
—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:122.163.74.199|122.163.74.199]] ([[User talk:122.163.74.199|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/122.163.74.199|contribs]]){{#if:18:22, 23 May 2007| 18:22, 23 May 2007|}}.

:I reverted the links - please review [[WP:SPAM]]. (BTW - the links didn't work when I tried to look at them.) -- [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] [[User talk:wrp103|(Talk)]] 19:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

::* I beg to differ but link seem to be fully functional. I dont see your reason of not adding them. What would anybody will gain adding non functional links.
—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:122.162.70.140|122.162.70.140]] ([[User talk:122.162.70.140|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/122.162.70.140|contribs]]){{#if:01:39, 24 May 2007| 01:39, 24 May 2007|}}.

:::Please sign your posts using4 tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).
:::The links timed out. Nobody would deliberately add bad links, but all links were to the same site, which is why I called it spam. -- [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] [[User talk:wrp103|(Talk)]] 02:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== Why isn't C in the category Procedural programming languages? ==

... For that matter, what about:

* BASIC
* C
* C++
* ColdFusion
* COBOL
* Component Pascal
* D
* Delphi
* ECMAScript (e.g., ActionScript, DMDScript, JavaScript, JScript)
* Forth
* Lasso
* Linoleum
* Maple
* Mathematica
* MATLAB
* Modula-2
* Oberon (Oberon-1 and Oberon-2)
* M
* Python
* VBScript

(Copied from the list on the page [[Procedural programming]]).

[[User:129.67.18.125|129.67.18.125]] 18:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

:My guess is that the C article existed before that category was created, and whoever created it didn't bother to plant links in the obvious set of existing articles. Anyway, I have added some category links to the C article. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

== Wish to add C Programming Website Link ==

Please take a while and review http://www.cencyclopedia.com and tell wether its worth enough to be added as link.

Thnk You. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Cencyclopedia|Cencyclopedia]] ([[User talk:Cencyclopedia|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cencyclopedia|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}}}.
: I would say absolutely not. I call [[WP:SPAM|spam]] and [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]], although I do appreciate that you took the time to ask rather than simply adding it in. However, I would also oppose the addition of the site, anyway. It adds little to the article, and I think that we should stick to either official or ''de facto'' 'standard' or 'official' sites there (and yes, that means that I disagree with some of the existing sites in there: comments from other editors on the existing links would be appreciate, before I just remove them — I mean, a personal website hosted on an ISP account?) ''[[User:Angus Lepper|Angus Lepper]]([[User talk:Angus Lepper|T]], [[Special:Contributions/Angus Lepper|C]], [[User:Angus Lepper/Desktop|D]])'' 15:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

::I agree that the site should not be added. I would also have no problem if the current list were trimmed. -- [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] [[User talk:wrp103|(Talk)]] 16:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

== Translation unit ==

The article ''[[translation unit]]'' talks about there's something called translation unit in the C programming language, and links to <code>this</code> article. May someone explain what ''translation unit'' means in the context of C? --[[User:Abdull|Abdull]] 17:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
: One source file, after all preprocessor instructions have been carried out (all <code>#include</code>s done, macros expanded, etc). Usually corresponds to one object file, that the linker combines with other translation units to resolve symbols etc before creating the final executable file. ''[[User:Angus Lepper|Angus Lepper]]([[User talk:Angus Lepper|T]], [[Special:Contributions/Angus Lepper|C]], [[User:Angus Lepper/Desktop|D]])'' 19:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

== CR-LF ==

Is it worth making the distinction between carriage return and line feed in the text? At the moment it claims '\n' moves the cursor to the beginning of the next line (as opposed to a combination of '\r' and '\n') — which is indeed the case in some consoles (e.g. Windows command prompt), but by no means all (heck, even the Windows <code>telnet</code> program doesn't). ''[[User:Angus Lepper|Angus Lepper]]([[User talk:Angus Lepper|T]], [[Special:Contributions/Angus Lepper|C]], [[User:Angus Lepper/Desktop|D]])'' 13:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:The '\n' character simply sends a line feed to the output file. It is the O/S (or library routine) that changes it to whatever the local EOL sequence might be. For those operating systems, opening a file as "ob" turns off that option, while "ot" turns it on. -- [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] [[User talk:wrp103|(Talk)]] 15:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:The '\n' character is required (by the C standard) to delimit a text line; how that is done depends on the specific platform, and I have seen nearly a dozen different methods used, CR,LF being just one of them. I don't see any need for the C article to go into this any more deeply than it already does. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 17:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

== "Hello, world" example ==

Shouldn't the 'standards compliant' form be something like:
<source lang="C">
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(void)
{
printf("Hello, world\n");
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
</source>

One does not return from the main() function but rather exit()s.
{{unsigned|142.108.228.34|19:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)}}
:Not sure who told you this, but they were wrong. Returning from main is perfectly acceptable. [[User:Dlong|Dlong]] 20:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
::I remember that classic Mac OS programs had to end with ExitToShell(), which did some housekeeping tasks. Most C implementations just used a macro to map exit() to ExitToShell(), and you could get some funky behavior in certain setups just returning. Another thing, what if some other part of the program called main()? Insane, I know, but still - it would return a value and continue(!). {{unsigned|142.108.228.34|20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)}}
:::That does not alter the fact that the program in the article is strictly conforming. And in fact ''all'' implementations are required to support "housekeeping" on a return from main (except on returns from recursive calls to main). For instance, functions registered with the atexit function must be called. Quoting from the C89 draft, "A return from the initial call to the main function is equivalent to calling the exit function with the value returned by the main function as its argument. If the main function executes a return that specifies no value, the termination status returned to the host environment is undefined." C99 makes a similar stipulation. [[User:Eric119|Eric119]] 03:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm convinced :) —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:76.10.148.186|76.10.148.186]] ([[User talk:76.10.148.186|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/76.10.148.186|contribs]]){{#if:11:30, 17 August 2007| 11:30, 17 August 2007}}.

== Any suggestion to improve? ==

I've added my website [http://www.c-programming-guide.com/][c-programming-guide.com] to the tutorial session, but it has been removed. Any suggestions for me to improve my website? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/155.69.5.236|155.69.5.236]] ([[User talk:155.69.5.236|talk]]) 14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 

:In general, it is not proper for anyone to add their own web site to any article. -- [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] [[User talk:wrp103|(Talk)]] 05:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

== originally used vs predominantly used ==

There has been a back and forth discussion about whether the intro should state that C was "originally used" or "predominantly used" for systems software. There is no doubt that C was originally used for systems software, but the question is if it is now "predominantly" used for systems or application software. The two citations following that sentence say that it was originally used for systems software, but I couldn't find any claim that it is now predominantly used for either.

It might be that C is now mostly used for applications, but until we can find a citation that makes that claim, it seems to me the sentence should use "originally." If we find a citation that says C is mostly used for application software, then I suggest that we change the sentence to:

:<nowiki>Although originally<ref>original footnotes</ref> used for [[system software]], it is now predominantly<ref>new citation</ref> used for [[applications]].</nowiki>

Comments? -- [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] [[User talk:wrp103|(Talk)]] 15:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

:You have misstated the issue. The intent of the sentence is to indicate what C is most useful for, and that is unquestionably systems programming, which is indeed what it was originally designed for. Of course it has been used for applications also, especially on early Unix systems which offered few viable alternatives (typically only Fortran and Bourne shell). These days, however, most apps are coded in higher-level languages such as Perl, PHP, TCL, and C++. C remains the predominant systems implementation language; more often than not those higher-level languages and their run-time libraries are themselves coded in C. C is heavily used for embedded systems development, especially for the scheduling/IPC/device/interrupt support.
:The introductory sentence needs to convey this fundamental aspect of C usage. Your change to "originally" gives an impression that is contrary to the reality; it makes the reader think that although C started out being used for systems programming, its use has changed over time to mainly applications. Rather the opposite has occurred; while a significant fraction of C's use shortly after its invention was for apps, that fraction has become smaller in recent times, due in large part to the more convenient and effective facilities offered by higher-level languages.
:If the references don't properly reflect this, then better references are needed, not a change to the text to give the reader a wrong impression. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 23:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

::If somebody can find a reliable source that states whatever C is mostly used for, we can use it. I don't read the sentence the way you are interpreting it. I will tweak it to reduce that conception. However, I stand by the fact that the citation only states that C was originally used for system programming, and until we can find another citation, we can't state what it is usually used for today. -- [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] [[User talk:wrp103|(Talk)]] 00:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

:: I agree with [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]]. [[User:Derek farn|Derek farn]] 07:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

::I have further tweaked the sentence; hopefully it will now satisfy all interested parties. C has always been used for both systems and applications. It is certainly not the best choice for most modern applications, and has largely been supplanted by Perl, Python, C++, and other languages in that capacity. However, it remains very important for systems implementation, not having been supplanted in general in that area (despite having some deficiencies). My concern with the previous revisions is that they could easily have been read as saying "C was once used mainly for systems programming, but is now more often used for applications", which gives an entirely wrong impression. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

== Array-pointer interchangeability error? ==

In the array-pointer interchangeability section, the four "equivalent" examples at the bottom are not necessarily equivalent, and do not attempt to demonstrate the same point as the rest of the section.

Contrary to what the example suggests, *(x + i) will result in an address (x + i*sizeof(*x)), whereas *(i + x) will result in an address (i + x*sizeof(*i)). Clearly, if sizeof(*x) and sizeof(*i) are not both equal to one, these will not be equivalent.

Also, I'm not even sure if this is really valid C (I can't get it to compile with either MSVC or gcc without casting), since "x designates an array". Either way, this example does not belong in this section. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.245.208.25|69.245.208.25]] ([[User talk:69.245.208.25|talk]]) 04:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 

:The article text is correct. i+x does *not* result in an address i+x*sizeof(*i); subclause 6.5.6 of the current C standard explains what happens. The pointer operand is treated the same way in this regard, no matter which order the operands have. The example also strictly conforms to the C standard. I don't know why you didn't get it to work, but try the following strictly conforming program:
<pre><nowiki>
#include <stdio.h>
static int i = 3;
static double x[10]; /* x designates an array */
static void dump() {
int k;
for (k = 0; k < 10; ++k)
printf("%g%c", x[k], k<9? ' ': '\n');
}
int main() {
dump();
x[i] = 1; dump(); x[i] = 0; dump();
*(x + i) = 1; dump(); *(x + i) = 0; dump();
*(i + x) = 1; dump(); *(i + x) = 0; dump();
i[x] = 1; /* strange, but correct: i[x] is equivalent to *(i + x) */
dump();
return 0;
}
</nowiki></pre>
The example certainly does belong in the section, since it illustrates the exact meaning of i[x] in C, which is quite unlike most other languages. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] ([[User talk:DAGwyn|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DAGwyn|contribs]]) 15:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 

==C99 Expanded to its own page==
I am interested in expanding the C99 section to its own page and including code snippets. The one on this page can stay as is with a pointer to the new page for more details. Does that sound good to you? [[User:Daniel.Cardenas|Daniel.Cardenas]] 22:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:What would be the purpose? Especially of "code snippets"? Of course, if there were to be a separate C99 page we would plant a link to it in the C page. — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 05:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
::Better more detailed explanation of C99 changes. [[User:Daniel.Cardenas|Daniel.Cardenas]] 13:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
:::So I guess you'd want a link after the list in C99/New features? Note that apart from new features, there were very few substantive changes from the previous spec (C90). The main one worth noting is the removal of implicit "int" in declarations. ("long x;" is still OK, but "register x;" isn't.) — [[User:DAGwyn|DAGwyn]] 16:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

== Developer - Dennis Ritchie only ? ==

Well i believe that this was not only Dennis Ritchie. But also Ken Thompson who initiated and developed for example ++ -- unary operators with it's position relative application. In papers i read from Dennis there was Ken "everything" Ken "everywhere", well there are only 2 links to him. It feels to me like he is somehow forgotten, isn't he? [[User:Cc..aa..ll|Cc..aa..ll]] ([[User talk:Cc..aa..ll|talk]]) 10:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Accordion (GUI)

2007-11-27T13:38:55Z

Cc..aa..ll: More precise definition --- underlying similarities --- check my nomenclature please

== Briefly ==
Accordion is a view (by [[window]] or [[thumbnail]]) of 1 item inside of a list of items.

== Similar to ==
[[Tabbed interface]]. Which is a view (window) of 1 item outside of a list of items (there [[shortuts]] to [[windows]]).

== Developer definition ==
Accordion is 1 [[view]] of an item inside of a (mostly fixexd size) list of N items. Those items are usually represented by some icon or text-button ([[tab]]). View (of those items) is just like another [[window]], but it is inside of a list (of those items) - can be also imagined as very large item. Which implies the list has to be large enought to contain it.

Note that window inside of a list can have [[scrollbars]].

= Purpose =
Purpose of [[accordion]] is to encompass the [[shortcuts]] (list of items)) together with their [[presentation]] (window). And do it so that they are very close to each other. See [[fitts law]] for further information about it.

== User definition ==
An '''accordion''' is a [[graphical user interface]] [[widget (computing)|widget]] in which several sections of a document can be expanded or collapsed, displaying one at a time. Whenever a section is selected for opening, the open one is closed.

As of June, 2007, the front page of [[Brown University]]'s website ([http://www.brown.edu/ here]) is dominated by an accordion.

The list view of Google Reader also features this.

== Design Options ==
To open one section of the accordion, the designer can choose to have it operate on either:
*roll-over
*click

[http://www.apple.com/itunes/ Apple.com] has some roll-over accordions. For a sample (as of Sept 2007), see the narrow columns of the page that include "Top TV Shows on iTunes, Top Movies on iTunes."

== External links ==
*[http://aariadne.com/accordion Accordion Widget] for [http://extjs.com Ext JS - JavaScript Library] Live Demo with Howto integrate the widget to a web page
*[http://www.yourhead.com/accordion/index.html Your head]
*[http://ajax.asp.net/ajaxtoolkit/Accordion/Accordion.aspx ASP.NET AJAX Control Toolkit]
*[http://www.hedgerwow.com/360/mwd/accordion/demo.php HedgerWow] DHTML Widget: Accordion Menu 2.0
*[http://demos.mootools.net/Accordion mootools] Tutorial (where the effect is called ''sliding shelf'') on [http://www.monfx.com/journal/2006/08/01/sliding-ajax-shelf-the-code-behind-the-mask/ MONFX]
*[http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-interface-accordion.html Accordion Interface] Demo of an accordion script

{{Elements of user interfaces}}

{{Compu-soft-stub}}

[[Category:Graphical user interface]]
[[Category:Widgets]]

Accordion (GUI)

2007-11-27T13:34:26Z

Cc..aa..ll:

== Briefly ==
Therefore it is a (pre)view of 1 item inside of a list of items.

== Developer definition ==
Accordion is 1 [[view]] of an item inside of a (mostly fixexd size) list of N items. Those items are usually represented by some icon or text-button ([[tab]]). View (of those items) is just like another [[window]], but it is inside of a list (of those items) - can be also imagined as very large item. Which implies the list has to be large enought to contain it.

Note that window inside of a list can have [[scrollbars]].

= Purpose =
Purpose of [[accordion]] is to encompass the [[shortcuts]] (list of items)) together with their [[presentation]] (window). And do it so that they are very close to each other. See [[fitts law]] for further information about it.

== User definition ==
An '''accordion''' is a [[graphical user interface]] [[widget (computing)|widget]] in which several sections of a document can be expanded or collapsed, displaying one at a time. Whenever a section is selected for opening, the open one is closed.

As of June, 2007, the front page of [[Brown University]]'s website ([http://www.brown.edu/ here]) is dominated by an accordion.

The list view of Google Reader also features this.

== Design Options ==
To open one section of the accordion, the designer can choose to have it operate on either:
*roll-over
*click

[http://www.apple.com/itunes/ Apple.com] has some roll-over accordions. For a sample (as of Sept 2007), see the narrow columns of the page that include "Top TV Shows on iTunes, Top Movies on iTunes."

== External links ==
*[http://aariadne.com/accordion Accordion Widget] for [http://extjs.com Ext JS - JavaScript Library] Live Demo with Howto integrate the widget to a web page
*[http://www.yourhead.com/accordion/index.html Your head]
*[http://ajax.asp.net/ajaxtoolkit/Accordion/Accordion.aspx ASP.NET AJAX Control Toolkit]
*[http://www.hedgerwow.com/360/mwd/accordion/demo.php HedgerWow] DHTML Widget: Accordion Menu 2.0
*[http://demos.mootools.net/Accordion mootools] Tutorial (where the effect is called ''sliding shelf'') on [http://www.monfx.com/journal/2006/08/01/sliding-ajax-shelf-the-code-behind-the-mask/ MONFX]
*[http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-interface-accordion.html Accordion Interface] Demo of an accordion script

{{Elements of user interfaces}}

{{Compu-soft-stub}}

[[Category:Graphical user interface]]
[[Category:Widgets]]

Talk:Ribbon (computing)

2007-11-22T22:46:20Z

Cc..aa..ll: /* An Expert is Needed */

== Keyboard accessibility ==
The ribbon in Office does not lack keyboard accessibility. Just press alt, and there you go... ([[User:84.31.63.81|84.31.63.81]] 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

08:22 Bnis 8h mit Ribbons (runtergedaldener Source) beschäftigt, gehe nun raus mit Hund, Getränke kaufen und leg mich um 10 Uhr hin.

== Non-disclosure agreement ==
What is that BS about signing NDA to get Ribbon design guidelines? They are available for download right here: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa973809.aspx [[User:71.117.4.238|71.117.4.238]] 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

:Then what is this? "[http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/bb218965.aspx Microsoft Evaluation License: 2007 Microsoft Office System User Interface]". In short, you need to agree to these terms to get the evaluation copy. Quoting the web page:
::CONFIDENTIALITY. The Design Guidelines, and the terms of this Agreement, are Microsoft’s confidential information. You cannot disclose them to anyone else without Microsoft’s prior written approval. However, you may disclose them to your contractors who have a need to know as long as they also agree to abide by the terms of this agreement.
:Sounds like a non-disclosure agreement to me. I'll cite this link in the article, thanks. -- [[User:Intgr|intgr]] 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

== Prior art needs citation if true, doubtful though ==

The claim that the ribbon may not be patentable because of prior art needs a credible citation. The Slashdot article on the licensing guidelines for the ribbon interface have a few posts from Slashdot visitors claiming its similar to something incorporated in an old version of 1-2-3. But if you read what they say is similar, its obvious that they aren't the same thing and wouldn't be viewed as the same thing legally (pressing a key leads to a horizontal menu in 1-2-3, versus a combination of a menu and a toolbar system in Office, come on). One person says its similar to whats implemented in Adobe products, but all Adobe products have is a toolbar that changes per task, something Microsoft is not attempting to patent. To make this claim in the article you have to cite an expert in patent law. You can't cite angry posters on Slashdot, who are mainly objecting because they hate the idea of patenting software features and interfaces in general, and have no concept as to what is patentable.

Yes its legitimate to point out some open source advocates are attacking Microsoft about this. But the way its presented in the article makes it sound like they have a point. Also, its not clear whether any credible open source advocates are pursuing this argument, or its just a bunch of Slashdot posters. People on forums and Slashdot often just think up any arguments they can to make any point they can, whether or not the arguments are credible. Wikipedia really can't appease every Slashdot poster's pet argument even if its wrong.

Please either cite a patent expert on the issue, and if you're just going to comment on open source advocates, a credible leader in open source advocacy. {{unsigned|Brianshapiro}}

:True. The obvious problem here is that nobody has seen the patent yet. I'm not even sure when or if Microsoft is going to submit an application (this claim is still tagged as "citation needed" in the article). As prior art depends on how broad the patent is going to be, I wouldn't except to see any qualified "reviews" of it any time soon.

:I wouldn't like to throw out the entire statement. The fact is, that it's being criticized, and is controversial. The practice of licensing a patent before even submitting an application is unusual at best, and that's what is actually being criticized. I do agree that Slashdot comments are not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], but it does document the general reactions from the community. As far as [[WP:POV]] is concerned, I don't see a problem.

:What do you think? -- [[User:Intgr|intgr]] 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

== It seems familiar... ==

It may just be me, especially since I haven't had a chance to play with 2007's version, but this interface seems rather familiar to what MicroStation uses. Am I kind of right or am I way off? [[User:Lady BlahDeBlah|Lady BlahDeBlah]] 22:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

== Long, long time ago? ==

<flame>
I can not say but that this new cool Microsoft feature reminds me of macinosh one-menu for all applications design. It is also context driven (window). And this office logo is similar to something i saw once on macintosh keyboard...no, it was not made in Microsoft labs neither. And maybe they call it ribb...;) nah Microsoft has been original at least there(?).
</flame>
{{unsigned|Calwaxfish}}
:Please keep in mind that Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the article, not for expressing your opinions about the subject. If you can't find any [[WP:RS|reliable source]]s to incorporate this into the article, it's irrelevant. Happy editing! -- [[user:intgr|intgr]] [[user talk:intgr|#%@!]] 11:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

: tab + "combobox" = ribbon . Tab as a elements grouped together, as seen on browser since opera(?). Combobox in a way its element is enlarged when possible. Well i think that rather than combobox better would be tab+menu = ribbon. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kauldron|Kauldron]] ([[User talk:Kauldron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kauldron|contribs]]) 12:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 

== Controversy section ==

I have added the neutrality tag to the Controversy section in the article. Microsoft may be spreading FUD with the article, but the statement that they may not license the ribbon to free software is itself a load of FUD. [[User:129.187.41.142|129.187.41.142]] 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:Removed the statement. I agree that it's purely speculation at this point. I don't think we're going to find out soon, given that there is no reason to agree to Microsoft's license in the first place (free software applications would have to re-implement the functionality anyway). PS: you're welcome to do such edits yourself. -- [[user:intgr|intgr]] [[user talk:intgr|#%@!]] 20:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:: I prefer to leave such possibly controversial edits to users that have been working on the article for a longer period of time, especially since IP edits are very often considered vandalism (even if it wasn't) and removed. The current paragraph is much better, thanks. [[User:129.187.100.141|129.187.100.141]] 09:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

== Article name ==
As I have said on the talk page [[Talk:Microsoft Office 2007#Name_of_user_interface|of Office 2007]], the official name is the ''[http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa905530.aspx Microsoft Office Fluent Interface]''. While commonly and unofficially referred to as the ''ribbon'', the article title should change to reflect the proper name, even if it is to drop the "Microsoft Office" part - although I doubt we'd see other software with a similar UI unless it was licensed out by Microsoft. [[User:Danj205|Danj205]] 05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

== An Expert is Needed ==
Fully aware I might be writing these lines in vain, I have the impression that ribbons, or how the concept is described in the article, have been around for years, notably in early 90ies file managers and a class of programs called trackers . Effectively, I don't think it's a Microsoft Office2007 innovation . Would be great to have expert opinion on this .

Always in good faith, [[User:85.74.237.213|85.74.237.213]] 04:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:We don't need an "expert" we just need a source comparing the functionality of this widget with something older. -- [[user:intgr|intgr]] [[user talk:intgr|[talk]]] 12:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

::be in a GUI. open some menu. for each group of commands: (imagine you) change linear positionning of commands into circular (see [[pie_menu]],[[fitts_law]], const. distance,[[search_tree]], [[balanced_tree]] - esp. [[avl_tree]];). rotate it 90 degrees (it does not matter actually). voíla.

::this is but a mere change in topology, nothing else. breaking of second level of hierarchy (counting from 1) you get basic commands + groups. it has been done by already mentioned toolboxes (usually grouped by tabs;). it is basically act of [[hoisting]]. i think it is just a "by removing one bit from heap, do you still have a heap? when you don't have heap?" - some greek philosopher was groking it.
::for

::some funny legal implications (IANAL) - but contains good informations (links) + documents some issues of ribbon ! http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1617

::i hope it will make people to experiment and try to do _user_friendly_ applications. by that i do not mean graphics lumber but simple and sane yet powerful use.

::[[innovation]]? didn't you ment invention? it clearly is innovation (kind of :) and it is not invention.

:: [[User:Cc..aa..ll|Cc..aa..ll]] ([[User talk:Cc..aa..ll|talk]]) 22:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Spinner (computing)

2007-11-22T22:45:14Z

Cc..aa..ll: rewritten --- attemp to mathematically define this (it needs a lot help thought) --- purpose : ambiguity

A '''spinner''' is a graphical [[widget (computing)|widget]] in a [[GUI]], typically oriented vertically, with which a user may adjust a value in an adjoining [[text box]] by either clicking on an up or down arrow, or by holding the arrow down, causing the value in the text box to increase (if the up arrow is held down) or decrease (if the down arrow is held). In most cases as the button is held down, the spinner increases the speed at which the value of the spinner is increased or decreased, up to the maximum (or minimum) allowed value. Usually, the value of the spinner is displayed in a text box next to the spinner, allowing the user to use the spinner to adjust the value, or to type the value into the text box.

It is different from a [[scrollbar]] in that a spinner is typically used to adjust a value without changing the format of the display or the other information on the screen.

==For programmers==
Spinner is a composed [[GUI]] element. It's purpose is to influence a data. It is (should be) positioned together with the data it influences. The influence is usually increase/decrease of some value. Therefore it is usually accompanied with 2 [[buttons]] - 2 arrows (from 3 cases - increase, decrease, do nothing) as symbol of that movement (change) of the influenced data.

The name "spinner" comes from the act of moving (although it can go far beyond this simple 2 [[buttons]] design).

Spiner is special case of [[scroller]].

===Scrollbar===
Scrollbal is a [[GUI]] element which represents (constant) interval interval_1 inside of another (constant) interval interval_2.

Values of interval_1 are subset of interval_2 . Second interval fully contains the first one.

You may imagine it as a [[window]] showing some large [[text_file]], which does not fit entirely on [[screen]]. You have some screen resolution and therefore ability to show some limited span of text on screen. You would like to jump into the middle or arbitrary position. File would be arbitrary big. You might not know size of a file and/or do not know/want to specify position by keyboard (percentage). Given that you need a [[widget]] to handle it. You need to represent a whole file and some shown area plus you need to arbitrary change the position of viewed area of text file. Solution would be to use two rectangles (mental model of a file + screen).

Also it is usually accompanied with 2 buttons (3 states - nothing, move up, move down) which help to precise the movement.

===Difference between scrollbar and spinner===
Spinner does not shows indication of value it influences - value is showed nearby. Therefore it would just be redundant information.

==External links==
*[http://ajax.asp.net/ajaxtoolkit/NumericUpDown/NumericUpDown.aspx ASP.NET AJAX Control Toolkit] NumericUpDown Demonstration

{{Elements of user interfaces}}

[[Category:Graphical user interface]]
[[Category:Widgets]]

{{compu-prog-stub}}

[[ja:スピンボタン]]

Hick's law

2007-11-22T20:55:03Z

Cc..aa..ll:

'''Hick's law''', or the '''Hick-Hyman law''', is a [[human-computer interaction]] [[model (abstract)|model]] that describes the time it takes for a [[user (computing)|user]] to make a decision as a function of the possible choices he or she has. Given ''n'' equally probable choices, the average reaction time ''T'' required to choose among them is approximately

:<math>T = b \log_{2}(n + 1)</math>

where ''b'' is a constant that can be determined empirically by fitting a line to measured data. According to Card, Moran, and Newell (1983), the +1 is "because there is uncertainty about whether to respond or not, as well as about which response to make." The law can be generalized in the case of choices with unequal probabilities ''pi'' of occurring, to

:<math>T = b H</math>

where ''H'' is the [[information theory|information-theoretic]] entropy of the decision, defined as

:<math>H = \sum_i^n p_i \log_{2}(1/p_i + 1)</math>

Hick's law is similar in form to [[Fitts' law]]. Intuitively, one can reason that Hick's law has a logarithmic form because people subdivide the total collection of choices into categories, eliminating about half of the remaining choices at each step, rather than considering each and every choice one-by-one, requiring linear time.

Hick's law has been shown to apply in experiments where the user is presented with ''n'' buttons, each having a light bulb beside them. One light bulb is randomly lit up, after which the user must press the corresponding button as quickly as possible. Obviously, the decision to be made here is very simple, requiring little conscious thought.

Hick's law is sometimes cited to justify [[menu (computing)|menu]] design decisions (for an example, see [http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taouu/html/ch04s03.html]). However, applying the model to menus must be done with care. For example, to find a given word (e.g. the name of a command) in a randomly ordered word list (e.g. a menu), scanning of each word in the list is required, consuming linear time, so Hick's law does not apply. However, if the list is alphabetical and the user knows the name of the command, he or she may be able to use a subdividing strategy that works in logarithmic time.

For Hick's law and [[Fitts' law]] considerations in the context of [[menu (computing)|menu]] and submenu design, see Landauer and Nachbar (1985).

== Clearifications ==
Operation of logarithm here expresses depth of "choice tree" hierarchy. Basically log2 means that you perform [[binary_search]].

== See also ==
* [[The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two]]
* [[Power Law of Practice]]

==References==
* Original work
** [[W. E. Hick]]. On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4:11-26, 1952.
** R. Hyman. Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45:188-196, 1953.
* Selected subsequent work
** T. K. Landauer and D. W. Nachbar. Selection from alphabetic and numeric menu trees using a touch screen: Breadth, depth, and width. In Proceedings of [[Association for Computing Machinery|ACM]] CHI 1985 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 73--78, 1985. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/317456.317470
* Overviews
** Stuart K. Card, Thomas P. Moran, [[Allen Newell]] (1983). The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction.
** A. T. Welford. Fundamentals of Skill. Methuen, 1968. Pages 61-65.

==External links==
* [http://www.usabilityfirst.com/glossary/main.cgi?function=display_term&term_id=266 Usability Glossary: Hick's Law]

[[Category:Human-computer interaction]]

[[fr:Loi de Hick]]
[[sv:Hicks lag]]

Breast cancer screening

2007-11-22T20:01:30Z

Cc..aa..ll: deleted 'this' word ;)

{{rrevised}}
==Important notification==
In case one wants to know [[probability]] of how many woman, told they are positive, actually was positive you should read this notification. Reason of it is that there has been large amount of misinerpretations.

In case you want to know what is the chance woman _has_ cancer if test is positive you need 3 informations. You need amount of falsely detected positive results, correctly detected positive results and amount of real positive results. For solely falsely detected results and correctly detected positive results has to be related by real positive results. If they weren't related by third one they would create 2 classes - completely different information with nothing common (see [[Class_(set_theory)]]).

<math>fraction\_of\_correctly\_identified\_woman\_with\_positive\_detection = \tfrac{woman\_with\_cancer}{correctly\_positively\_detected + falsely\_positively\_detected} </math>

For more information please see [[Bayes'_theorem]].

==X-ray mammography==
Mammography is still the modality of choice for screening of early [[Breast cancer|breast cancer]], since it is relatively fast, reasonably accurate, and widely available in developed countries. Breast cancers detected by mammography are usually much smaller (earlier stage) than those detected by patients or doctors as a breast lump.{{Fact|date=September 2007}}

Due to the high incidence of breast cancer among older women, screening is now recommended in many countries. Recommended screening methods include [[breast self-examination]] and [[mammography]]. Mammography has been estimated to reduce breast cancer-related mortality by 20-30%.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Elwood J, Cox B, Richardson A | title = The effectiveness of breast cancer screening by mammography in younger women. | journal = Online J Curr Clin Trials | volume = Doc No 32 | issue = | pages = [23,227 words; 195 paragraphs] | year = | id = PMID 8305999}}</ref> Routine (annual) mammography of women older than age 40 or 50 is recommended by numerous organizations as a screening method to diagnose early breast cancer and has demonstrated a protective effect in multiple clinical trials.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Fletcher S, Black W, Harris R, Rimer B, Shapiro S | title = Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. | journal = J Natl Cancer Inst | volume = 85 | issue = 20 | pages = 1644-56 | year = 1993 | id = PMID 8105098}}</ref> The evidence in favor of mammographic screening comes from eight randomized clinical trials from the 1960s through 1980s. Many of these trials have been criticised for methodological errors, and the results were summarized in a review article published in 1993.<ref name=Fletcher_1993>{{cite journal | author = Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S | title = Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer | journal = J. Natl. Cancer Inst. | volume = 85 | issue = 20 | pages = 1644-56 | year = 1993 | pmid = 8105098 | doi = | accessdate = 2007-05-26}}</ref>

Improvements in mortality due to screening are hard to measure; similar difficulty exists in measuring the impact of [[Pap smear]] testing on [[cervical cancer]], though worldwide, the impact of that test is likely enormous. Nationwide mortality due to cancer before and after the institution of a screening test is a surrogate indicator about the effectiveness of screening, and results of mammography are favorable.

[[Image:Mammo breast cancer.jpg|thumb|right|Normal (left) versus cancerous (right) mammography image.]]

The U.S. [[National Cancer Institute]] recommends screening mammography every one to two years beginning at age 40.<ref name="NCI_MMG_Screening">{{cite web |url=http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/mammstatement31jan02 |title=NCI Statement on Mammography Screening - National Cancer Institute |accessdate=2007-09-11 |format= |work=}}</ref> In the UK, women are invited for screening once every three years beginning at age 50. Women with one or more first-degree relatives (mother, sister, daughter) with premenopausal breast cancer should begin screening at an earlier age. It is usually suggested to start screening at an age that is 10 years less than the age at which the relative was diagnosed with breast cancer.

A [[clinical practice guideline]] by the [[US Preventive Services Task Force]] recommended "screening mammography, with or without clinical breast examination (CBE), every 1 to 2 years for women aged 40 and older."<ref name="pmid12204019">{{cite journal |author= |title=Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale |journal=Ann. Intern. Med. |volume=137 |issue=5 Part 1 |pages=344-6 |year=2002 |pmid=12204019 |doi=|url=http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/137/5_Part_1/344}}</ref> The Task Force gave a grade B recommendation.<ref name='USPSTF Ratings'/>{{Verify source|date=October 2007}}

==Criticisms of screening mammography==
Several scientific groups however have expressed concern about the public's perceptions of the benefits of breast screening.<ref>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=Women 'misjudge screening benefits' | date= Monday, 15 October, 2001 | publisher= | url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1601267.stm | work =BBC | pages = | accessdate = 2007-04-04 | language = }}</ref> In 2001, a controversial review published in [[The Lancet]] claimed that ''there is no reliable evidence that screening for breast cancer reduces mortality''.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Olsen O, Gøtzsche P |title=Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography |journal=Lancet |volume=358 |issue=9290 |pages=1340-2 |year=2001 |pmid=11684218}}</ref> The results of this study were widely reported in the popular press.<ref>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=New concerns over breast screening | date= Thursday, 18 October, 2001 | publisher= | url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1607113.stm | work =BBC | pages = | accessdate = 2007-04-04 | language = }}</ref>

False positives are a major problem of mammographic breast cancer screening. Data reported in the UK Million Woman Study indicates that if 134 mammograms are performed, 20 women will be called back for suspicious findings, and four biopsies will be necessary, to diagnose one cancer. Recall rates are higher in the U.S. than in the UK.<ref name="pmid15814020">{{cite journal |author=Smith-Bindman R, Ballard-Barbash R, Miglioretti DL, Patnick J, Kerlikowske K |title=Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK |journal=Journal of medical screening |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=50-4 |year=2005 |pmid=15814020 |doi=10.1258/0969141053279130}}</ref> The contribution of mammography to the early diagnosis of cancer is controversial, and for those found with benign lesions, mammography can create a high psychological and financial cost.

===Mammography in women less than 50 years old===
Part of the difficulty in interpreting mammograms in younger women stems from the problem of breast density. Radiographically, a dense breast has a preponderance of glandular tissue, and younger age or [[estrogen]] [[hormone replacement therapy]] contribute to mammographic breast density. After menopause, the breast glandular tissue gradually is replaced by fatty tissue, making mammographic interpretation much more accurate. Some authors speculate that part of the contribution of [[estrogen]] [[hormone replacement therapy]] to breast cancer mortality arises from the issue of increased mammographic breast density. Breast density is an independent adverse prognostic factor on breast cancer prognosis.

A [[systematic review]] by the [[American College of Physicians]] concluded "Although few women 50 years of age or older have risks from mammography that outweigh the benefits, the evidence suggests that more women 40 to 49 years of age have such risks".<ref name="pmid17404354">{{cite journal |author=Armstrong K, Moye E, Williams S, Berlin JA, Reynolds EE |title=Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age: a systematic review for the American College of Physicians |journal=Ann. Intern. Med. |volume=146 |issue=7 |pages=516-26 |year=2007 |pmid=17404354 |doi=}}</ref>

==Enhancements to mammography==
In general, digital mammography and computer-aided mammography have increased the sensitivity of mammograms, but at the cost of more numerous false positive results.{{Fact|date=September 2007}}

[[Computer-aided diagnosis]](CAD) Systems may help radiologists to evaluate X-ray images to detect breast cancer in an early stage.{{Fact|date=September 2007}} CAD is especially established in US and the Netherlands. It is used in addition to the human evaluation of the diagnostician.

==Breast MRI==
[[Magnetic resonance imaging]] (MRI) has been shown to detect cancers not visible on mammograms, but has long been regarded to have disadvantages. For example, although it is 27-36% more sensitive, it is less specific than mammography.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Hrung J, Sonnad S, Schwartz J, Langlotz C | title = Accuracy of MR imaging in the work-up of suspicious breast lesions: a diagnostic meta-analysis. | journal = Acad Radiol | volume = 6 | issue = 7 | pages = 387-97 | year = 1999 | id = PMID 10410164}}</ref> As a result, MRI studies will have more [[Type I and type II errors|false positives]] (up to 5%), which may have undesirable financial and psychological costs. It is also a relatively expensive procedure, and one which requires the intravenous injection of a chemical agent to be effective.
Proposed indications for using MRI for screening include:<ref>{{cite journal | author = Morrow M | title = Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: one step forward, two steps back? | journal = JAMA | volume = 292 | issue = 22 | pages = 2779-80 | year = 2004 | id = PMID 15585740}}</ref>
*Strong family history of breast cancer
*Patients with BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 oncogene mutations
*Evaluation of women with breast implants
*History of previous lumpectomy or breast biopsy surgeries
*Axillary metastasis with an unknown primary tumor
*Very dense or scarred breast tissue

However, two studies published in 2007 demonstrated the strengths of [[MRI]]-based screening:

*In March 2007, an article published in the ''[[New England Journal of Medicine]]'' demonstrated that in 3.1% of patients with breast cancer, whose [[contralateral]] breast was clinically and mammographically tumor-free, [[MRI]] could detect breast cancer. [[Sensitivity (tests)|Sensitivity]] for detection of breast cancer in this study was 91%, [[Specificity (tests)|specificity]] 88%.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Hanna L, Peacock S, Smazal SF, Maki DD, Julian TB, DePeri ER, Bluemke DA, Schnall MD | title = MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer.| journal = N Engl J Med.| volume = 356 | issue = 13| pages = 1295-1303| year = 2007 | id = PMID 17392300}}</ref>

*In August 2007, an article published in ''[[The Lancet]]'' compared [[MRI]] breast cancer screening to conventional mammographic screening in 7,319 women. [[MRI]] screening was highly more sensitive (97% in the MRI group vs. 56% in the mammography group) in recognizing early high-grade [[Carcinoma in situ| Ductal Carcinoma in situ (DCIS)]], the most important precursor of invasive carcinoma. Despite the high [[Sensitivity (tests)|sensitivity]], MRI screening had a [[positive predictive value]] of 52%, which is totally accepted for cancer screening tests.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, Wardelmann E, Leutner CC, Koenig R, Kuhn W, Schild HH| title = MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study| journal = The Lancet | volume = 370 | issue = 9586 | pages = 485-492 | year = 2007 | id = PMID }}</ref> The author of a comment published in the same issue of ''The Lancet'' concludes that "MRI outperforms mammography in tumour detection and diagnosis."<ref>{{cite journal | author = Boetes C, Mann RM| title = Ductal carcinoma in situ and breast MRI| journal = The Lancet | volume = 370 | issue = 9586 | pages = 459-460 | year = 2007 | id = PMID }}</ref>

==Breast ultrasound==
{{Unreferencedsection|date=October 2007}}
[[Medical ultrasonography|Ultrasound]] alone is not usually employed as a screening tool but it is a useful additional tool for the characterization of palpable tumours and directing image-guided biopsies. U-Systems is a US-based company that is selling a breast-cancer detection system using ultrasound that is fully-automated. Using an ultrasound allows a look at dense breast tissue which is not possible with digital mammmography. It is closely correlated with the digital mammography. The other significant advantage over digital mammography is that it is a pain-free procedure.

==Breast self-exam==
[[Breast self-examination]] was widely discussed in the 1990s as a useful modality for detecting breast cancer at an earlier stage of presentation. A large clinical trial in China reduced enthusiasm for breast self-exam. In the trial, reported in the ''Journal of the National Cancer Institute'' first in 1997 and updated in 2002, 132,979 female Chinese factory workers were taught by nurses at their factories to perform monthly breast self-exam, while 133,085 other workers were not taught self-exam. The women taught self-exam tended to detect more breast nodules, but their breast cancer mortality rate was no different from that of women in the control group. In other words, women taught breast self-exam were mostly likely to detect benign breast disease, but were just as likely to die of breast cancer.<ref name="pmid12359854">{{cite journal |author=Thomas DB, Gao DL, Ray RM, ''et al'' |title=Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: final results |journal=J. Natl. Cancer Inst. |volume=94 |issue=19 |pages=1445-57 |year=2002 |pmid=12359854 |doi=}}</ref> An editorial in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported in 2002, "Routinely Teaching Breast Self-Examination is Dead. What Does This Mean?"<ref name="pmid12359843">{{cite journal |author=Harris R, Kinsinger LS |title=Routinely teaching breast self-examination is dead. What does this mean? |journal=J. Natl. Cancer Inst. |volume=94 |issue=19 |pages=1420-1 |year=2002 |pmid=12359843 |doi=}}</ref>

==BRCA testing==
A [[clinical practice guideline]] by the [[US Preventive Services Task Force]] :<ref name="pmid12204019">{{cite journal |author= |title=Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale |journal=Ann. Intern. Med. |volume=137 |issue=5 Part 1 |pages=344-6 |year=2002 |pmid=12204019 |doi=|url=http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/137/5_Part_1/344}}</ref>
* "recommends against routine referral for [[genetic counseling]] or routine breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) testing for women whose family history is not associated with an increased risk for deleterious mutations in breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 ([[BRCA1]]) or breast cancer susceptibility gene 2 ([[BRCA2]])" The Task Force gave a grade D recommendation.<ref name='USPSTF Ratings'/>{{Verify source|date=October 2007}}
*"recommends that women whose family history is associated with an increased risk for deleterious mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes be referred for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA testing." The Task Force gave a grade B recommendation.<ref name='USPSTF Ratings'/>{{Verify source|date=October 2007}}

The Task Force noted that about 2% of women have family histories that indicate increased risk as defined by:
* For non–Ashkenazi Jewish women, any of the following:
** "2 first-degree relatives with breast cancer, 1 of whom received the diagnosis at age 50 years or younger"
** "3 or more first- or second-degree relatives with breast cancer regardless of age at diagnosis"
** "both breast and ovarian cancer among first- and second- degree relatives"
** "a first-degree relative with bilateral breast cancer"
** "a combination of 2 or more first- or second-degree relatives with ovarian cancer regardless of age at diagnosis"
** "a first- or second-degree relative with both breast and ovarian cancer at any age"
** "a history of breast cancer in a male relative."
*"For women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, an increased-risk family history includes any first-degree relative (or 2 second-degree relatives on the same side of the family) with breast or ovarian cancer."

==References==


{{Reflist|2}}

==External links== 

* {{dmoz|/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Cancer/Breast/|Breast cancer}}
{{Breast cancer}}
{{Tumors}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Breast cancer, Epidemolgoy and etiology of}}
[[Category:Gynecology]]
[[Category:Types of cancer]]
[[Category:Breast]]
[[Category:Ribbon symbolism]]
[[Category:Hereditary cancers]]

Breast cancer screening

2007-11-22T20:00:58Z

Cc..aa..ll: New category - information about probability of having cancer (if you had positive test) -- used Bayes theorem --- someone should add results (p is about 10%?)--->that woman should not worry much

{{rrevised}}
==Important notification==
In case one wants to know [[probability]] of how many woman, told they are positive, actually was positive you should read this notification. Reason of it is that there has been large amount of misinerpretations.

In case you want to know what is the chance woman _has_ cancer if test is positive you need 3 informations. You need amount of falsely detected positive results, correctly detected positive results and amount of real positive results. For solely falsely detected results and correctly detected positive results has to be related by real positive results. If they weren't related by third one they would create 2 classes - completely different information with nothing common (see [[Class_(set_theory)]]).

<math>fraction\_of\_correctly\_identified\_woman\_with\_positive\_detection = \tfrac{woman\_with\_cancer}{correctly\_positively\_detected + falsely\_positively\_detected} </math>

This

For more information please see [[Bayes'_theorem]].

==X-ray mammography==
Mammography is still the modality of choice for screening of early [[Breast cancer|breast cancer]], since it is relatively fast, reasonably accurate, and widely available in developed countries. Breast cancers detected by mammography are usually much smaller (earlier stage) than those detected by patients or doctors as a breast lump.{{Fact|date=September 2007}}

Due to the high incidence of breast cancer among older women, screening is now recommended in many countries. Recommended screening methods include [[breast self-examination]] and [[mammography]]. Mammography has been estimated to reduce breast cancer-related mortality by 20-30%.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Elwood J, Cox B, Richardson A | title = The effectiveness of breast cancer screening by mammography in younger women. | journal = Online J Curr Clin Trials | volume = Doc No 32 | issue = | pages = [23,227 words; 195 paragraphs] | year = | id = PMID 8305999}}</ref> Routine (annual) mammography of women older than age 40 or 50 is recommended by numerous organizations as a screening method to diagnose early breast cancer and has demonstrated a protective effect in multiple clinical trials.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Fletcher S, Black W, Harris R, Rimer B, Shapiro S | title = Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. | journal = J Natl Cancer Inst | volume = 85 | issue = 20 | pages = 1644-56 | year = 1993 | id = PMID 8105098}}</ref> The evidence in favor of mammographic screening comes from eight randomized clinical trials from the 1960s through 1980s. Many of these trials have been criticised for methodological errors, and the results were summarized in a review article published in 1993.<ref name=Fletcher_1993>{{cite journal | author = Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S | title = Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer | journal = J. Natl. Cancer Inst. | volume = 85 | issue = 20 | pages = 1644-56 | year = 1993 | pmid = 8105098 | doi = | accessdate = 2007-05-26}}</ref>

Improvements in mortality due to screening are hard to measure; similar difficulty exists in measuring the impact of [[Pap smear]] testing on [[cervical cancer]], though worldwide, the impact of that test is likely enormous. Nationwide mortality due to cancer before and after the institution of a screening test is a surrogate indicator about the effectiveness of screening, and results of mammography are favorable.

[[Image:Mammo breast cancer.jpg|thumb|right|Normal (left) versus cancerous (right) mammography image.]]

The U.S. [[National Cancer Institute]] recommends screening mammography every one to two years beginning at age 40.<ref name="NCI_MMG_Screening">{{cite web |url=http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/mammstatement31jan02 |title=NCI Statement on Mammography Screening - National Cancer Institute |accessdate=2007-09-11 |format= |work=}}</ref> In the UK, women are invited for screening once every three years beginning at age 50. Women with one or more first-degree relatives (mother, sister, daughter) with premenopausal breast cancer should begin screening at an earlier age. It is usually suggested to start screening at an age that is 10 years less than the age at which the relative was diagnosed with breast cancer.

A [[clinical practice guideline]] by the [[US Preventive Services Task Force]] recommended "screening mammography, with or without clinical breast examination (CBE), every 1 to 2 years for women aged 40 and older."<ref name="pmid12204019">{{cite journal |author= |title=Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale |journal=Ann. Intern. Med. |volume=137 |issue=5 Part 1 |pages=344-6 |year=2002 |pmid=12204019 |doi=|url=http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/137/5_Part_1/344}}</ref> The Task Force gave a grade B recommendation.<ref name='USPSTF Ratings'/>{{Verify source|date=October 2007}}

==Criticisms of screening mammography==
Several scientific groups however have expressed concern about the public's perceptions of the benefits of breast screening.<ref>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=Women 'misjudge screening benefits' | date= Monday, 15 October, 2001 | publisher= | url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1601267.stm | work =BBC | pages = | accessdate = 2007-04-04 | language = }}</ref> In 2001, a controversial review published in [[The Lancet]] claimed that ''there is no reliable evidence that screening for breast cancer reduces mortality''.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Olsen O, Gøtzsche P |title=Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography |journal=Lancet |volume=358 |issue=9290 |pages=1340-2 |year=2001 |pmid=11684218}}</ref> The results of this study were widely reported in the popular press.<ref>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=New concerns over breast screening | date= Thursday, 18 October, 2001 | publisher= | url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1607113.stm | work =BBC | pages = | accessdate = 2007-04-04 | language = }}</ref>

False positives are a major problem of mammographic breast cancer screening. Data reported in the UK Million Woman Study indicates that if 134 mammograms are performed, 20 women will be called back for suspicious findings, and four biopsies will be necessary, to diagnose one cancer. Recall rates are higher in the U.S. than in the UK.<ref name="pmid15814020">{{cite journal |author=Smith-Bindman R, Ballard-Barbash R, Miglioretti DL, Patnick J, Kerlikowske K |title=Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK |journal=Journal of medical screening |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=50-4 |year=2005 |pmid=15814020 |doi=10.1258/0969141053279130}}</ref> The contribution of mammography to the early diagnosis of cancer is controversial, and for those found with benign lesions, mammography can create a high psychological and financial cost.

===Mammography in women less than 50 years old===
Part of the difficulty in interpreting mammograms in younger women stems from the problem of breast density. Radiographically, a dense breast has a preponderance of glandular tissue, and younger age or [[estrogen]] [[hormone replacement therapy]] contribute to mammographic breast density. After menopause, the breast glandular tissue gradually is replaced by fatty tissue, making mammographic interpretation much more accurate. Some authors speculate that part of the contribution of [[estrogen]] [[hormone replacement therapy]] to breast cancer mortality arises from the issue of increased mammographic breast density. Breast density is an independent adverse prognostic factor on breast cancer prognosis.

A [[systematic review]] by the [[American College of Physicians]] concluded "Although few women 50 years of age or older have risks from mammography that outweigh the benefits, the evidence suggests that more women 40 to 49 years of age have such risks".<ref name="pmid17404354">{{cite journal |author=Armstrong K, Moye E, Williams S, Berlin JA, Reynolds EE |title=Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age: a systematic review for the American College of Physicians |journal=Ann. Intern. Med. |volume=146 |issue=7 |pages=516-26 |year=2007 |pmid=17404354 |doi=}}</ref>

==Enhancements to mammography==
In general, digital mammography and computer-aided mammography have increased the sensitivity of mammograms, but at the cost of more numerous false positive results.{{Fact|date=September 2007}}

[[Computer-aided diagnosis]](CAD) Systems may help radiologists to evaluate X-ray images to detect breast cancer in an early stage.{{Fact|date=September 2007}} CAD is especially established in US and the Netherlands. It is used in addition to the human evaluation of the diagnostician.

==Breast MRI==
[[Magnetic resonance imaging]] (MRI) has been shown to detect cancers not visible on mammograms, but has long been regarded to have disadvantages. For example, although it is 27-36% more sensitive, it is less specific than mammography.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Hrung J, Sonnad S, Schwartz J, Langlotz C | title = Accuracy of MR imaging in the work-up of suspicious breast lesions: a diagnostic meta-analysis. | journal = Acad Radiol | volume = 6 | issue = 7 | pages = 387-97 | year = 1999 | id = PMID 10410164}}</ref> As a result, MRI studies will have more [[Type I and type II errors|false positives]] (up to 5%), which may have undesirable financial and psychological costs. It is also a relatively expensive procedure, and one which requires the intravenous injection of a chemical agent to be effective.
Proposed indications for using MRI for screening include:<ref>{{cite journal | author = Morrow M | title = Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: one step forward, two steps back? | journal = JAMA | volume = 292 | issue = 22 | pages = 2779-80 | year = 2004 | id = PMID 15585740}}</ref>
*Strong family history of breast cancer
*Patients with BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 oncogene mutations
*Evaluation of women with breast implants
*History of previous lumpectomy or breast biopsy surgeries
*Axillary metastasis with an unknown primary tumor
*Very dense or scarred breast tissue

However, two studies published in 2007 demonstrated the strengths of [[MRI]]-based screening:

*In March 2007, an article published in the ''[[New England Journal of Medicine]]'' demonstrated that in 3.1% of patients with breast cancer, whose [[contralateral]] breast was clinically and mammographically tumor-free, [[MRI]] could detect breast cancer. [[Sensitivity (tests)|Sensitivity]] for detection of breast cancer in this study was 91%, [[Specificity (tests)|specificity]] 88%.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Hanna L, Peacock S, Smazal SF, Maki DD, Julian TB, DePeri ER, Bluemke DA, Schnall MD | title = MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer.| journal = N Engl J Med.| volume = 356 | issue = 13| pages = 1295-1303| year = 2007 | id = PMID 17392300}}</ref>

*In August 2007, an article published in ''[[The Lancet]]'' compared [[MRI]] breast cancer screening to conventional mammographic screening in 7,319 women. [[MRI]] screening was highly more sensitive (97% in the MRI group vs. 56% in the mammography group) in recognizing early high-grade [[Carcinoma in situ| Ductal Carcinoma in situ (DCIS)]], the most important precursor of invasive carcinoma. Despite the high [[Sensitivity (tests)|sensitivity]], MRI screening had a [[positive predictive value]] of 52%, which is totally accepted for cancer screening tests.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, Wardelmann E, Leutner CC, Koenig R, Kuhn W, Schild HH| title = MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study| journal = The Lancet | volume = 370 | issue = 9586 | pages = 485-492 | year = 2007 | id = PMID }}</ref> The author of a comment published in the same issue of ''The Lancet'' concludes that "MRI outperforms mammography in tumour detection and diagnosis."<ref>{{cite journal | author = Boetes C, Mann RM| title = Ductal carcinoma in situ and breast MRI| journal = The Lancet | volume = 370 | issue = 9586 | pages = 459-460 | year = 2007 | id = PMID }}</ref>

==Breast ultrasound==
{{Unreferencedsection|date=October 2007}}
[[Medical ultrasonography|Ultrasound]] alone is not usually employed as a screening tool but it is a useful additional tool for the characterization of palpable tumours and directing image-guided biopsies. U-Systems is a US-based company that is selling a breast-cancer detection system using ultrasound that is fully-automated. Using an ultrasound allows a look at dense breast tissue which is not possible with digital mammmography. It is closely correlated with the digital mammography. The other significant advantage over digital mammography is that it is a pain-free procedure.

==Breast self-exam==
[[Breast self-examination]] was widely discussed in the 1990s as a useful modality for detecting breast cancer at an earlier stage of presentation. A large clinical trial in China reduced enthusiasm for breast self-exam. In the trial, reported in the ''Journal of the National Cancer Institute'' first in 1997 and updated in 2002, 132,979 female Chinese factory workers were taught by nurses at their factories to perform monthly breast self-exam, while 133,085 other workers were not taught self-exam. The women taught self-exam tended to detect more breast nodules, but their breast cancer mortality rate was no different from that of women in the control group. In other words, women taught breast self-exam were mostly likely to detect benign breast disease, but were just as likely to die of breast cancer.<ref name="pmid12359854">{{cite journal |author=Thomas DB, Gao DL, Ray RM, ''et al'' |title=Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: final results |journal=J. Natl. Cancer Inst. |volume=94 |issue=19 |pages=1445-57 |year=2002 |pmid=12359854 |doi=}}</ref> An editorial in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported in 2002, "Routinely Teaching Breast Self-Examination is Dead. What Does This Mean?"<ref name="pmid12359843">{{cite journal |author=Harris R, Kinsinger LS |title=Routinely teaching breast self-examination is dead. What does this mean? |journal=J. Natl. Cancer Inst. |volume=94 |issue=19 |pages=1420-1 |year=2002 |pmid=12359843 |doi=}}</ref>

==BRCA testing==
A [[clinical practice guideline]] by the [[US Preventive Services Task Force]] :<ref name="pmid12204019">{{cite journal |author= |title=Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale |journal=Ann. Intern. Med. |volume=137 |issue=5 Part 1 |pages=344-6 |year=2002 |pmid=12204019 |doi=|url=http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/137/5_Part_1/344}}</ref>
* "recommends against routine referral for [[genetic counseling]] or routine breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) testing for women whose family history is not associated with an increased risk for deleterious mutations in breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 ([[BRCA1]]) or breast cancer susceptibility gene 2 ([[BRCA2]])" The Task Force gave a grade D recommendation.<ref name='USPSTF Ratings'/>{{Verify source|date=October 2007}}
*"recommends that women whose family history is associated with an increased risk for deleterious mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes be referred for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA testing." The Task Force gave a grade B recommendation.<ref name='USPSTF Ratings'/>{{Verify source|date=October 2007}}

The Task Force noted that about 2% of women have family histories that indicate increased risk as defined by:
* For non–Ashkenazi Jewish women, any of the following:
** "2 first-degree relatives with breast cancer, 1 of whom received the diagnosis at age 50 years or younger"
** "3 or more first- or second-degree relatives with breast cancer regardless of age at diagnosis"
** "both breast and ovarian cancer among first- and second- degree relatives"
** "a first-degree relative with bilateral breast cancer"
** "a combination of 2 or more first- or second-degree relatives with ovarian cancer regardless of age at diagnosis"
** "a first- or second-degree relative with both breast and ovarian cancer at any age"
** "a history of breast cancer in a male relative."
*"For women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, an increased-risk family history includes any first-degree relative (or 2 second-degree relatives on the same side of the family) with breast or ovarian cancer."

==References==


{{Reflist|2}}

==External links== 

* {{dmoz|/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Cancer/Breast/|Breast cancer}}
{{Breast cancer}}
{{Tumors}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Breast cancer, Epidemolgoy and etiology of}}
[[Category:Gynecology]]
[[Category:Types of cancer]]
[[Category:Breast]]
[[Category:Ribbon symbolism]]
[[Category:Hereditary cancers]]

Talk:Torture/Archive 2

2007-11-08T23:23:50Z

Cc..aa..ll: /* Torturing tools */ new section

{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject Human rights}}

{{archive box|[[Talk:Torture/Archive 1|1]]}}

== POV, 7 March 2007==
"It is particularly dangerous to military organizations. The deliberate infliction of pain on a helpless person is fundamentally a cowardly act and its perpetrators must necessarily be of suspect reliability on the battlefield. Cowardice is known to be contagious in deadly combat situations but the acceptable threshold for numbers of combatants who might break and run in any given fight is virtually unknowable. Hence, the deliberate acceptance of any practitioners of torture in a military culture is problematic indeed."

While hardly any of this article is neutral, this is a particularly bad passage. What reason is there for believing torturers are more likely to run on the battlefield? There's no source, it's just an unsubstantiated claim that happens to flatter everyone's world view. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? Even when we all agree on an issue, an encylcopedic article should at least make a pretense of impartiality.
[[User:72.26.64.68|72.26.64.68]] 15:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I find the statement about a "philosophical consensus" somewhat loaded. A consensus among all philosophers today? I mean come on, some clarity would be called for here, regardless of how we might feel about the issue. I know there are legal as well as ethical concerns surrounding this article, but there is certainly nothing illegal, nor, I would say, immoral, about a neutral encyclopedia article being more inclusive of all possible views and shades of views. As an example, more should be included about the ticking time-bomb scenario, and other situations when it might arguably make ethical sense to use torture ... Sorry about a long-winded and hasty post, I haven't contributed as much to this thing as I would like and this is my first post in awhile. [[User:Chocolatier|Black Lab]] 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article is against torture, which in some ways is understandable but I would certainly love to see some arguements in favor of it included to make this article more complete. [[User:KenBest|KenBest]] 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Torture has victims. Those victims (such as Jews who survived the shoah) would most certainly object to the promotion of torture. Suggesting that torture should be done, in their minds, is tantamount to reviving Nazism. Clearly, there are some modern Nazis who would want to justify Hitler's actions. While discussions should be evenhanded, it is possible, in certain cases, for one side to be dangerous. [[User:Improve]] 20 April 2007

:See the section [[Torture#Ethical arguments regarding torture|Ethical arguments regarding torture]] --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 13:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:I understand your viewpoint, but it may be a little difficult, considering the subject matter. I doubt that if we tried it, it would last very long before someone edited it. Arguments in favour of torture are extremely hard to justify and would probably do more harm than good. We'd probably just set off an edit war. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:211.30.131.199|211.30.131.199]] ([[User talk:211.30.131.199|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/211.30.131.199|contribs]]) 11:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})

Back to the original request: Arguments pro and con would likely be argumentative–—and not factually illuminated. People on both sides of such an argument are typically unwilling, on "moral" grounds, that their argument lose, so the heat level increases and the clarity level decreases proportionally. What people on neither side would probably find uncomfortable would be a careful objective inquiry into actual instances of torture including their total costs (e.g., how is the tortured person doing 10 years and 50 years after torture ceased, and, how is the torturer faring at more and more remote times?), their total benefits (Was something learned that saved numerous people from pain and/or death? Was nothing learned? What were the results in the middle?) It's easy to think of examples that could justify the creation of some level of discomfort for the perpetrator of a crime, e.g., if you know where the bomb is and I put an aikido hold on you that causes excruciating pain that totally disappears after you tell where the bomb can be found and how to disable it, but determined terrorists do not give up information so easily and the information they give up may not be worth that much.

Knowing that (1) torture almost never gives good results no matter how severe, or (2) torture frequently yields saving information without needing to be severe enough to leave lasting traces would '''still''' not determine what things are moral and what things are immoral, but at least the judges of the torture policy would not be working on their own personal and subjective guesswork.

Unfortunately, such information does not exist in any very well organized format as far as I know. I have been hearing things lately about long-term consequences of torture in North Ireland coming to light, especially as relate to the harm torturers do to themselves. People may find themselves coerced into torturing others, and they may be the ones who still writhe internally decades later despite the fact that the people they tortured may have gotten over it. If the information did exist, it would make sense to include the main results in this article. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

== In popular culture offloaded ==

I'd offloaded all popular culture references to leaf article [[References to torture in popular culture]]. This is quite standard way to deal with this kind of information. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 16:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

==Quality of the text==
Quality of the text at this time is awful - first half of the text covers information about Geneva conventions and UN treaties which are only of minor relevance to the topic. Torture had been with the humankind throughout the whole history and couple of modern agreements few care about deserve few lines or paragraph, the rest should be in leaf article(s). I added <nowiki>{{cleanup-rewrite}}</nowiki>. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 16:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Agreements? Do you mean arguments? [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] 05:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:In your opinion they are only of minor relevance. I disagree and think that they are central to understanding the position of torture in contemporary society. How would you for example define torture? --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 16:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

:: The definition should be IMHO more like from Websters [http://www.webster.com/dictionary/torture] or from [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9073000/torture Britannica], less concentrated on modern era.

:: The article would get better by splitting up and in some parts expanding:
::* History of use of the torture is now covered in single, rather short section ignoring everything outside Europe.
::* Historical laws covering torture do deserve leaf article (possibly list). There's huge amount of material that will be added into WP at some time.
::* Torture devices and methods section grew into hard to orient list and may be offloaded.
::* The text about Geneva conventions, UN resolutions, etc should be offloaded into stable leaf articles.
::* The accumulated recent use of torture should be all moved into the leaf article.
::[[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 11:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

:The definition of what is torture changes over time. The UNCAT is the foundation of all modern legal defintions. How are the definition of Websters or Britannica different apart from less detail from that of UNCAT? Details of UNCAT explain actions like those of the USA's use of stress postions etc and their use of [[Extraordinary rendition]], both of which are topical issues about the use of torture. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 07:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

::No, the definition of torture doesn't change. What changes are '''laws against torture'''. These laws might include extra things in their purview, but that doesn't change the primary definition of the word.

::For example, check out "[[racism]]". The general definition is "[[discrimination]] or [[prejudice]] based on [[race]]". That is a timeless formulation.

::Politically or ethically, however, some people dispute whether a particular type of discrimination or prejudice is justified. So they may contend, "It's not racism if we apply (this policy) or endorse (this theory)". Some scholars have claimed that [[black people]] are inherently 'less smart' than Asians or Whites. Whether they are "pre-judging" is a matter of no small controversy. There is also a political dispute over whether [[affirmative action]] is a valid remedy or a type of "[[reverse discrimination]]".

::Wikipedia articles cannot settle such questions. We can only quote what 'secondary sources' say about them.

::It will help our readers if we distinguish between general concepts and specific legal formulations. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 14:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

:I think you are mistaken on this issue. During the time in England that HDQ was the common way to execute traitors,few thought it a cruel or unusual punishment, but today few in the English speaking world would think it as anything but cruel and unusual punishment. The meanings of words particularly those used in treaties have a legal definition which defines what they are. The interpretation of these may change over time and that needs to be taken into account, but that is what court judgements do. When the ECHR (Court) ruled that the five techniques as used by the British Government in Ireland in the 1970s were not torture under ECHR (Convention), this helped to clarify what torture was and what was mealy degrading treatment. Using international treaty definitions and backing those up with International court rulings and commentaries is a much more precise way of defining what a word means than using dictionary definitions which might or might not stand up to an analysis as detailed as those presented in a court case.

:Uncle Ed on a slightly tangential note you wrote in the edit history of this article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture&diff=116188031&oldid=116104354 It's not neutral to open with a quotation from such a recent political document (19 March 2007)]" in the article on the [[unlawful combatant]]s you have recently added a quote to the lead section (See "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unlawful_combatant&diff=106840949&oldid=106839352 nonprivileged or unlawful combatants cannot claim the same protections under interrogation as POWs (9 February 2007)]"). Please explain what the difference is in the use of quotes in the introduction of this article and in the unlawful combatants article. Given that the UNCAT has near universal support from the member states of the UN how is it not neutral to open with a quotation from such a treaty? --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 15:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Philip, if I'm wrong you have put it so politely and clearly that it was practically painless to find this out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition of torture does not change. Someone who's tall in China may not be tall in the US, but that doesn't mean the definition of tall has changed. Only its relative application. [[User:66.167.145.86|66.167.145.86]] 08:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

==Whether the degree of pain is important==

:Section 1: torture is defined as severe pain or suffering, which means there exist levels of pain and suffering which are not severe enough to be called torture.

This needs attribution, because it is a point which is hotly disputed (if only in the Western world). The split is roughly even, with US Liberals saying there is no distinction (i.e., [[rough interrogation]] is [[torture]]) and US Liberals saying there is a significant differenc.

Based on their different views, liberals and conservatives sharply disgree on matters of policy and legislation. I recall some sort of resolution in one of the houses of Congress on this, in the form: (blank) is torture and Bush has to make Rumsfield stop it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 14:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

:I would think this is covered by the international accepted definition, i.e. UNCAT. Making even psychological pain part of torture. Admittedly the US seeks to redefine torture as those practices resulting in '''physical''' identifiable marks or even what results in death. This clearly is more narrowly defined than what the rest of the world says. [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]][[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]] 14:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

::It is clearly defined in the ECHR judgement in the "Ireland v. the United Kingdom" (Case No. 5310/71). See [[Uses of torture in recent times#United Kingdom]] and [[five techniques]] --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 15:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

But what fun would torture be if their was no pain? All you want is a confession - any intelligence would be unreliable at best - but judging from the photos from Iraq and what you hear about the torturers, fun must be a major motive.[[User:159.105.80.141|159.105.80.141]] 11:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion of UNCAT is horribly POV and appears to have been written by someone who was mulling over reasons why they can still use torture. Torture is like getting someone pregnant, there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, and there is no such thing as a threshold to torture that isn't quite torture. [[User:199.125.109.125|199.125.109.125]] 19:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:The most significant aspect of torture might not be pain per se, but the prospect of permanent maiming and disability. For instance, American treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo with loud noise is presumably intended to damage their hearing, causing permanent ear ringing and/or deafness. Similarly, Asian practices of whipping the bottoms of the feet or European use of the "boot" were intended to cause the prisoner pain in walking long after the torture session was ended. [[User:70.15.116.59|70.15.116.59]] 03:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

==Ethical arguments regarding torture==

Just so that everyone understands the different choices between allowing torture and allowing a nuclear bomb to obliterate a city, in one case we live with the fear and certainty of possibly being falsely tortured, in the second case the remaining population can continue to live without the fear of being tortured. People die every day and it is better to die peacefully than to die in fear. How many people died on Sep 11, 2001 in New York? About three thousand, and more than that died needlessly in the subsequent four years because they were afraid to fly and drove instead of flying. How many people die in the United States needlessly due to smoking and obesity every year? About half a million. Americans are worried about the wrong things. As to the nuclear bomb blowing up a city? That has only happened twice in the history of the world and both times it was done by Americans. The likelihood of it ever happening again are very slim, and of course can be reduced by eliminating all nuclear weapons, and not by doing it the American way - you go first, but the best way, I'll go first. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User: 199.125.109.125| 199.125.109.125]] ([[User talk: 199.125.109.125|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ 199.125.109.125|contribs]]) 19:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})
::::Please sign your posts using four tildes ([[User:24.90.17.134|24.90.17.134]] 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).

:I doubt that I really understand what the above anonymous writer is trying to say. Apparent s/he thinks there is some calculus by which one can weigh torture and nuclear annihilation on the same scale.
::"Above anonymous writer" ? Why do so many people on Wikipedia use phrases like that? Is it intended to denigrate writers for choosing to be anonymous, which is their (our) right, and which is in fact the default mode for Wikipedia, whether you like it or not? Is it intended as a kind of permission to automatically discount what the writer has to say? Anyway, it comes across as an off-putting ad hominem. --[[User:24.90.17.134|24.90.17.134]] 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::When put on the same scale it is my POV that torture is worse. And I might add I am entitled to any POV I want, as long as I keep the article NPOV, balancing my view with yours. [[User:199.125.109.125|199.125.109.125]] 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:The fact that only Americans used an atomic bomb before has lots to do with a few facts, facts that have changed since the end of World War II. First, the US was tired of fighting a pair of intense wars. Germany had surrendered, but every indication was that Japan would fight to the last man as they had consistently done in the defense of every island reconquered from them. Not to approve or disapprove of the action, but the level of temptation to use these powerful new weapons was high. Second, '''only''' the US had atomic weapons as far as anyone knew, and the US had control of the airspace over the Pacific. Therefore the US did not have to worry about a nuclear counterattack. Once the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons, the US feared to use them because the result could be a counter-attack from the Soviet Union. (Remember the intense awareness of the high stakes involved the the USSR introduced nuclear-tipped ICBMs into Cuba.) More recently India and Pakistan seemed to be coming close to nuclear warfare over Kashmir. In the past, accidents have almost led to nuclear exchanges between the US and the USSR. There was one particularly close call when malfunctioning radar equipment created the appearance of an armada of bombers headed over the North Pole toward targets in the U.S. Fortunately the system was de-bugged with minutes to spare. Future accidents may not be resolved with such good fortunes.

:When George Bush was seeking cart blanche to use torture, one of the obvious ploys was to present a hypothetical situation in which an American city is under nuclear threat and only the torture of a terrorist who had the bad judgment to let himself get caught can save millions of life. Former president Clinton stated at the time that should such a situation arise there were already sufficient provisions in the law to protect officials who resolved to try extraordinary measures as a last resort. The problem with the use of such a hypothetical, as I see it, is that in asking prior permission to break laws and standards of civilized behavior one can open the door to the negligent or even frivolous use of the new legal freedom to torture to serve other ends. In comparison, it is a minor matter if the FBI reads somebody's e-mail without having followed federal laws regarding such matters.

:As a potential aggressor in any situation, a rational person will understand that when aggressed upon one's counterpart may take violent exception to that act. People who point weapons at policemen (or at anyone for that matter) have no real reason to complain if the police officer shoots them. When Soviet Premier Kruschev "drew on" the U.S. in the Cuba incident, the military advisers to President Kennedy wanted him to nuke the Soviets before they could get us. Fortunately Kennedy thought of another way out.

:If "American people are afraid of the wrong things," then what should they be afraid of? I would count a nuclear backpack weapon smuggled into the US in a bale of marijuana something to worry about. But I would also worry about a climate in which ordinary citizens could be hauled of to be tortured because somebody decided he didn't like their looks.

::If you are worried about that you are worried about the wrong things. For one thing it is much more likely that a nuclear weapon would be smuggled in with an otherwise legal shipment. For another your chances of getting hit by lightning four times are much more likely than the chances that anyone will smuggle a nuclear weapon into the United States. [[User:199.125.109.125|199.125.109.125]] 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:As for what counts as torture, I believe the standard once proposed was that anything that was not as bad as dying, or maybe it was anything that didn't result in the prisoner dying, was not torture. Kant said that in making any law the lawmaker has to be willing that it be applied equally to all citizens of the country. In more homely terms, his moral rule can be formulated as, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." Some of our ganders should sample the sauce. I think they would not want it as a regular part of their diet.

::And when was that standard proposed, in the early 2nd century? And revived by one Alberto Gonezales? [[User:199.125.109.125|199.125.109.125]] 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:Pure pain is, by definition, not pleasant. It has the advantage, however, that once it is terminated it can quickly be forgotten. Injury, however, is another matter. Even something as minor as a broken toe can leave one with a lifelong disability, and a source of new pain whenever one buys shoes that are too narrow at the front. Not all injuries are physical. Some injuries are psychological. Intense insults leading to shame can leave impressions that stay with one for a lifetime and may continually provoke dysfunctional behavior.

::You are dead wrong when you say that pain can be quickly forgotten. The emotional scars of being tortured never leave. [[User:199.125.109.125|199.125.109.125]] 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:When one puts misleading hypotheticals aside and looks at what the truly effective path to "information retrieval" may be, it becomes clear that the most effective ways require relatively long time periods to accomplish. Even better than retrieving information from unwilling prisoners is retrieving information from non-prisoners beforehand. Sometimes that is not possible, and enemies who are in one's custody may be persuaded to cooperate. The best interrogators apparently are the one who do not force information from their captives, but that approach takes time.

::Enemies? What enemies? There is no country that has declared itself an enemy of any country for a long time, other than the US of course who pretends that there is an axis of evil, without declaring war on any of them - the US never declared war against Afganistan, yet obliterated it, never declared war against Iraq, did the same, never declared war against Cuba, punished them unnecessarily with an embargo just becuase of a silly opposition to their form of government. [[User:199.125.109.125|199.125.109.125]] 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:On the other hand, one who attempts any kind of assault on another has to realize that even if the assault may have been made in jest, the party who perceives himself/herself to be under attack has no obligation to be saintly under those circumstances. In fact, the reality may be that an ordinarily very nice person snaps under perceived threat to self and family and retaliates in a way that is out of proportion to the threat. But that is a '''fact''' about human nature, and anyone who attacks without taking that fact into account may get badly surprised. Even creating the appearance of being a terrorist bomber can put a prankster into the position of being perceived as a real threat, and the response to the threat may go far beyond what would have been appropriate if the threat had been real. (People who are deeply frightened often find it difficult to remain entirely rational. Just think of how some people react to the presence of spiders that have no serious venom and no intention to bite anyone.) So the would-be terrorist ought to consider himself/herself likely to be subjected to torture if caught. But that doesn't condone the torturer.

::Ah yes, an eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind. Treat people with respect and they won't attack you. [[User:199.125.109.125|199.125.109.125]] 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:It seems to me that there are at least two different kinds of torturers. The first kind is the one who perceives someone else as a horrific threat to his community and, for lack of time to do anything more humane and effective, attempts to cause the individual enough pain to force him to reveal the truth. To the extent that such a person remains rational under the circumstances, he would opt for means that produce pain but that do not result in long-term physical or mental damage.

:The second kind of torturer is someone who has come to see torture as the object of the game, who no longer feels a shred of empathy for his intended target. He is, then, a person who has lost his essential humanity or at least put it in the deep freeze. He has become an inhuman being. There were plenty of examples of people who took up torturing as a regular job toward the end of the last century. (I am thinking of certain nations in South America.) These people were rarely if ever operating under the hypothetical conditions that have been used to justify torture in emergency circumstances. If I remember the general drift of what Clinton said, it was the if somebody used torture in an instance where his/her family and community were under immediate threat, then it would perhaps prove reasonable to pardon the behavior, but that the behavior should still be regarded as having been a crime.

::Read the article. Torture is any act of torture done in an official capacity. You can torture your dog, or your grandmother, but for the purposes of an international definition of torture, that is not torture. [[User:199.125.109.125|199.125.109.125]] 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:Arguing any kind of calculus that provides a guilt-free trip to the status of professional torturer seems ill-advised to me. After all, one could become the next person thought to have information pertinent to the interests of the state, i.e., to whoever is in power at the moment. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] 07:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

::Whatever - torture seems ill-advised to a lot of people. The point of international law is that torture does not serve the interests of any state - and is prohibited. [[User:199.125.109.125|199.125.109.125]] 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

== 12/04/07 - Jos' Edit ==

The article was too bias, especially in favour of Amnesty Int.
I've cut down the excessive use of negative adjectives, and created a new definition section, which seems more neutral than the old layout. But it does really need a re-write.

Thanks
Jos —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:82.109.92.210 |82.109.92.210 ]] ([[User talk:82.109.92.210 |talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/82.109.92.210 |contribs]]) 16:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})

::''Please read [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]] specifically [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practice|Good practice]], new sections should go at the bottom of the talk page and you can '''[[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|Sign your posts]]''': To sign a post, type four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>)''

:I reversed you edits please see: [[Wikipedia:Lead section]]. You might like to consider making you changes but keeping a lead section, but please consider [[WP:NPOV]]. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 16:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

==Aristotle on Torture==
In book I chapter 15 of Rhetoric, Aristotle says torture is unreliable. "we may say what is true of torture of every kind alike, that people under its compulsion tell lies quite as often as they tell the truth, sometimes persistently refusing to tell the truth, sometimes recklessly making a false charge in order to be let off sooner." (1377A)
And also "We must say that evidence under torture is not trust-worthy, the fact being that many men whether thick-witted, tought-skinned, or stout of heart endure their ordeal nobly, while cowards and timid men are full of boldness till they see the ordeal of these others: so that no trust can be placed in evidence under torture."

If there is evidence of Aristotle's "staunch" support of torture I would be very interested in seeing it. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User: 136.242.228.148 | 136.242.228.148 ]] ([[User talk: 136.242.228.148 |talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ 136.242.228.148 |contribs]]) 10:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})

==Rounding==
I read this book where this was a torturous death called "rounding." From the book, it was a technique invented by Native Americans and used during the American and Indian hostilities (don't know the official name for it) in the 1800s. What happened was that the person would cut off the victim's nose, lips, ears, and cheeks, which caused the face to be "rounded." Is this real or made up? The book I read about this in was one of those mystery Lincoln & Child novels. [[User:Eridani|Eridani]] 03:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

==Recent torture ==

I am surprised this article which has a section for recent acts of torture lacks information or at least a mention of torture condoned by the US in Iraq and Guatanamo Bay and abroad in CIA prisons. [[User:87.194.250.183|87.194.250.183]] 13:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:See the main article in that section [[Uses of torture in recent times]]. When there was more on recent torture in this article it attracted a POV war. For example you sate categogorically that "at least a mention of torture condoned by the US in Iraq and Guatanamo Bay and abroad in CIA prisons" but there is not categogorical proof that the authorised treatment of prisoners held by the Americanse results in "severe pain or suffering". But whatever ones point of view on this there is a detailed section and an article on the subject in [[Uses of torture in recent times#United States]] and in [[Torture and the United States]] withou the need to single out the USA in this article. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 16:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You can bet that if there's a subject in the media where negativity is directed at the US, there will be a mountain of it represented on the Wikipedia. If you don't see it you are just looking in the wrong place. Every claim, allegation, and accusation gets added to the wikipedia (and usually referenced as if it was undisputed fact) within seconds of publication. What happens is the distaste with articles being too americentric, plus the plain unweildiness of the large mass of polemic, causes it to break off periodically into its own articles. Then new editors such as yourself come along and fill in the void left behind, plus those newly formed articles experience the same forces, and the process repeats. It's how the wikipedia grows, similar to asexual reproduction. [[User:64.163.4.225|64.163.4.225]] 18:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"condoned by" the US? Why the weasel word? You mean "committed by". "Condoned" ''might'' cover extraordinary renditions, but surely not Guantanamo, CIA prisons, and those held by US forces in Iraq.
This argument that there is not "categorical proof" that the "authorised" (authorized by whom, pray tell? So state-inflicted torture is exempt from consideration in the article? Doesn't that render most of the text absurd then?) treatment of US prisoners results in severe pain or suffering could be used to undercut virtually every example of torture mentioned in the article. (and incidentally, to the Cheneyesque crowd: if such practices ''don't'' result in severe suffering, then just wherein lies their utility? "Oh no, here come these guys again to ''not'' make me suffer! I better give up what I know right now!")
I don't see anyone lining up for water-boarding. And US personnel have been prosecuted (if rarely sternly punished) for having committed torture - even going by Gonzalez's absurd "death or major organ failure" definition - which gives the lie (if so much other evidence is to be ignored) to this "no categorical proof" nonsense. {{unsignedIP|24.90.17.134|03:33, 23 July 2007}}

==Merge to [[Torture]]==

Seems to me that any article entitled "[[Psychology of torture]]" cannot avoid being a personal reflection or essay as it is not a formally recognised subject, so that it might be a better course to merge it into [[Torture]] and redirect? --[[User:Zeraeph|Zeraeph]] 00:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That article discussed mainly other definitions of torture than the international definition, which was mainly discussed in this article. However bringing part of it in has made a long article even longer. [[User:199.125.109.125|199.125.109.125]] 20:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. They should remain separate articles.[[User:65.255.130.104|65.255.130.104]] 06:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that this article is far too long. It is currently 81 kb when the warning goes off anytime it an article exceeds 35 kb. Rather, Sections 10, 11 and 12, already paralleling the article Psychology of Torture should be removed and retained only in the latter article which is already linked. Bad idea all around, Zeraeph. [[User:70.69.141.34|70.69.141.34]] 07:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Checked and found that before the Psychology of Torture material was imported 18 June 2007, the article was already 62 kb long. Meanwhile, the Psychology of Torture article has yet to reach 35 kb and the topic is well defined and is far beyond the scope of the present article.

I vote to immediately eliminate all the recently added material from P of T article, namely

Section 10 - Immediate psychological aspects of torture
10.1 Psychological effects of pain
10.2 Extending torture to family and friends
10.3 The perversion of intimacy

Section 11 Post-torture psychological effects of torture
11.1 Intrapersonal effects
11.2 Social effects

Section 12 The torture process to the torturer
12.1 Motivation to torture

[[User:70.69.141.34|70.69.141.34]] 08:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:If it is essay then it should be put up for an AfD. Essays should not be merged into other articles to disguise that they are essays. Even if it is not an essay this article is already too large, so I have reverted the text that was added over the last few days. As this article is already the size that it is there is no reason why a short section as an overview can not be written and added to this article with a "main article" much as is done with the section "Ethical arguments regarding torture". --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 18:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If the material is of good quality, then Wikify it and make it no longer an essay. There's no need to disdain good material because of format. As to merging it, the resulting article would be absurdly long, and cause a torturous load time on the user. Perhaps there should be a Torture Portal under a larger one, (Human Rights, Psychology, etc.) This article is clearly written and positioned for an audience desiring material: there's no need to dumb it down. [[User:Fifth Rider|Fifth Rider]] 23:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

== Torture, survey info, disproved sentence removal. ==

From my talk page:
Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture&diff=138186090&oldid=138073754 your edits] to [[Torture]]; The survey info was specifically added to counterprove the previous sentence "Nevertheless in the 21st Century torture is almost universally considered to be an extreme violation of [[human rights]]," which is literally contradicted by the survey info. So if this survey information is going to be moved then the sentence it was ment to counterprove will have to be removed from the artical in its' entirety.
You do not need to take any action as I have already removed the offending sentence from the artical.

:It saddens me that I must now consider 29% of the world population the 'enemy'. --[[User:ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE|ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE]] 07:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit I made did not delete the text mention it moved it down into the appropriate section [[Torture#Ethical arguments regarding torture]]. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 16:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

== Where's the rest of the sentence? ==
This article opens with an incomplete sentence. And btw, what is an "historic dictionary"? {{unsignedIP|24.90.17.134|02:46, 23 July 2007}}

:I agree, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture&oldid=145846879 the opening paragraph is terrible]. It's virtually unintelligible (it begins with a sentence fragment and gets worse.) It's [[WP:OR|original research]] (unless someone can find a source that says all "historic dictionaries" define torture this way). It's probably factually incorrect (I don't know what a "historic dictionary" is but I doubt they ''all'' define torture in exactly the same way). It uses bold, italics and hyphenation in '''an''' apparently ''arbitrary-way''. I'm reverting to the last version that made any sense to me. [[User:Sideshow Bob Roberts|Sideshow Bob Roberts]] 13:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

::It's much, much better now! Great job!--[[User:24.90.17.134|24.90.17.134]] 01:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

== Is this assertion supported or just assumed? ==
''Especially in countries where citizens can expect to be spared routine exposure to real torture, the word "torture" is used loosely'' -- There should be support for that assertion, or it should be removed. And what exactly is "routine" exposure to real torture? And what does "exposure to" mean? Actually having been tortured, or simply being aware of it as a "routine" fact of life? And surely there are ''many'' countries where the "word 'torture' " is not used at all - anywhere English is not spoken!
In any event, this whole passage seems more appropriate to a dictionary than to an encyclopedia article. (If every article contained every loose or metaphoric usage of the title term, the bloat would become awful.) {{unsignedIP|24.90.17.134|03:13, 23 July 2007}}

== Not a forum ==
KenBest, this is an online encyclopedia, not a dabating forum. The article should not contain "Arguments" for and against anything.
==this section a little wobbly==
I think the section citing Will and Ariel Durant re the Middle Ages strays a little far into speculation about the motivations of victims who resisted interrogations in that period. The section seems flabby. I wouldn't know how to fix it, because I'm not clear about the function it's intended to serve within the article as a whole. --[[User:24.90.17.134|24.90.17.134]] 02:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

== United Nations Convention Against Torture ==

Was this passed and therefore enforced on all members? Or wa sit one members sign up to?

USA likes to support all sort of international convention, but they never sign them. This is because they dont want to have to play by the rules!

Has the UN done anything about the USA using torture at Gunatanamo Bay? NO! Just another point UN is a joke.--[[User:203.192.92.73|203.192.92.73]] 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
:According to the article it "came into force in June 1987". This article needs another rewrite. The soon to be Gonezales folks have once again tried to redefine torture. [[User:199.125.109.125|199.125.109.125]] 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Him him him" - only men are tortured?==

This article constantly mentions "him" when presumably it is talking about potentially any person so it may be better to use "them" or sometimes "that person" instead. If "him" is in quotations directly from another source like U.N. articles then it would have to be left, but others could be changed.

"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from '''''him''''' or a third person information or a confession, punishing '''''him''''' for an act '''''he''''' or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed..."

[[User:Carlwev|Carlwev]] 11:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

==Institutionalized State-Supported Torture in Prisons==

Someone began this subtopic, and it is true that it was written like an essay, by someone deleted the entire subtopic without any edit summary, explanation or opinion entered on this Talk page.

This being an appropriate topic (in my opinion, being worthy of its own daughter topic (but let's start out here with some discussion til someone decides to adopt and develop such a project..), I reverted, then deleted all buy a small part of the lead, added some things I know to be true, added citation needed tags, and have brought the balance over here so it can be read, accumulate discussion and encourage research. Citations (and/or wiki-links) can be undoubtedly found for the at least some of those needed. [[User:A Kiwi|Kiwi]] 20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

<blockquote>"no sun light ever (see Oklahoma's H Block entirely underground).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Often these conditions including incarceration within small cells accounting to no more than a small cage. A substantial percentage of those incarcerated in such a way go insane within one to three years. Generally these prisoners receive no subsequent psychological treatment.</blockquote>

<blockquote>If the public at all understood any of this, it would be surely widely seen as torture. And the public, if understanding the illegal nature of all that as torture , would also not condone any continuation of any of it.</blockquote>

<blockquote>And those, especially including victims families, loudly advocating, longest sentences and advocating these conditions would be seen to have fallen off the range of normal human behavior and to have joined the ranks of those approving and condoning torture - surely acts as criminal as those they decry as though victims of rape, murder and so on. The question is which is more criminal, to murder someone with a single shot, or to torture them for a life time via conditions in prison.</blockquote>

<blockquote>This condoning surely includes the legislatures of many states maintaining such facilities and e.g. refusing to fund any mental aid for those driven crazy. And esp by the endless pandering of legislatures, to the un-informed public, by legislatures constantly advocating, heavier sentencing , more time, etc. And much of any such longer sentences is entirely illegal as the [[14th Amendment]] and [[equal protection clause]] make illegal any citizen of any state getting any different sentence than those in the states with lightest sentence.</blockquote>

<blockquote>This subject also includes the too frequent rape of prisoners by other prisoners, and on being often repeated, becomes itself a form of torture, if not actively condoned, by prison operators, still responsibility can lie no where else when the prisoners raped have no means to defend or escape that form of rape torture.</blockquote>

* COMMENT - As can be seen, this impassioned widely ranging portion of the edit of the other day could not be left as it is. Additionally, the safety of prisoners, imo, does not specifically fit under torture, though the fear for one's safety from rape within the prison population is well recognized, but is not an institutionalized issue, even if advocated, manipulated or even arranged by prison guards unless this does not constitute rogue behavior, but it considered as totally acceptable under the management of the prison or under tacit acceptance of government. [[User:A Kiwi|Kiwi]] 20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

A sub-sub-topic entitled "Remedy for torture" actually addressed only the issue of prisons, so was deleted and will be, in part, recorded below.

::When laws ban such activities, then when they occur, there is usually no remedy given, when in fact, any one giving any substantial thought to this subject, would immediately understand that such methods as torture then negate entirely e.g. the rest of any sentence left.

::And those driven crazy by heinous conditions of their prison life, have been tortured to insanity; and so any remaining time is negated entirely by the state / the government so causing that insanity when insanity surely was never part of the sentencing.

[[User:A Kiwi|Kiwi]] 20:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Added more there being about mental illness and disordered personalities much more common in incarcerated populations, and that Supermax treatment causes exacerbation of these conditions, and that treatment of depression, delusions, paranoia, psychosis, et al, are not provided with appropriate psychiatric and psychological help for them to maintain a "normal" mental state, given the Supermax conditions. Also added two sources. Many many more authoritative and specific citations can be supported from links and documents from the supermax site. [[User:A Kiwi|Kiwi]] 05:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

==Psychiatric abuses now included under medical torture==

What needs to be included here is at least a mention of how the Soviet Union used extended psychiatric commitments for those airing "politically incorrect opinions" [[User:A Kiwi|Kiwi]] 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

==Article Length - time to begin a review process==

Obviously this article is over long, needs added citations, tightening up, lots of wiki-links for deeper coverage of various issues that are addressed, but that will involve a group of interested souls willing to use the talk page here to work out these issues in an atmosphere of consensus seeking and adherence to WikiPedia principals governing encyclopedic standards.

When you find something you disagree with, consider why you disagree - is an obvious pov approach, an essay type diatribe or simply missing citations. Before feeling driven to wholesale deletions of material, think of what you can do, by editing of existing text, your additions to balance pov, etc, and bring what you see the problems to be to the talk page for discussion. [[User:A Kiwi|Kiwi]] 22:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

*CAUTIONARY COMMENT. Daughter articles may already exist for some of the entries, some daughter articles may be obviously required. I would ask, please, that subtopics and/or large chunks of good basic information not be deleted, but exported to this talk page or directly to new daughter articles, or that it be checked to see how well an existing article already covers the material well (like the Spanish Inquisition as just one example) where many details can be transported if needed and embedded wikilinks inserted within this main article. [[User:A Kiwi|Kiwi]] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 22:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 

== Medical ==
I added involuntry commitment . There is numerous evidence of crimes in involuntary commitment.
Recent example [http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk0OCZmZ2JlbDdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5NzIwNTUwOCZ5cmlyeTdmNzE3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTI= languished in the hospital's psychiatric unit for up to a decade]
This is POV? What is the arguement for removing it?--[[User:Mark v1.0|Mark v1.0]] 14:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
:Involuntary_commitment[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment]] Involuntary hospitalization[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry#Involuntary_hospitalization]]. Once a person is judged mentally ill, the state and psychiatry can treat this person the way psychiatrists and hospital staff deem necessary. Examples of abuses are forced electroshock, forced drugging and confinement without judicial hearings. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mark v1.0|Mark v1.0]] ([[User talk:Mark v1.0|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mark v1.0|contribs]]) 14:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 

==2 specific large deletions from Torture article==

From my talk page:
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
Regarding 2 subtopics started this weekend.

One, entitled "Involuntary commitment"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture&diff=164693609
Your edit summary specifies - (→Medical torture - Removed USA specific paragraphs. These should be added to the main article and/of the USA section of the article Uses of torture in recent times)...

The other, entitled "Institutionalized Torture in Prisons"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture&diff=164693776&oldid=164693609
Your edit summary specifies - (→Institutionalized Torture in Prisons - US specific. This incormation can be added to the the USA section of the article Uses of torture in recent times)

However you do not move either section. Why did you delete instead of doing a cut and paste move?

BTW, the "main article" is obviously not the place for the material you referred to as that is not the purpose of a Main Article. The main article is to be a summary of what the article below covers.

Waiting to hear your explanation as I am baffled why a cut and paste move turned into deletion of two large new edits. [[User:A Kiwi|Kiwi]] 17:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

*COMMENT - it is a wikipedia aim to present "world views", not just a USA pov. However many sub-topics in this article could present a "how it is in America" while it will also talk about how it is was in the US in the past and how it is/was in other countries. While there is, currently, a USA section dealing with an overview of the Constitutional and Bill of Rights protections, simply because portions of both these new subtopics addressed "how it was then and is now" in America" does not mean that the entire topic somehow becomes "a sup-topic specific to America. This is because all countries over the world have the mentally ill and prisons. [[User:A Kiwi|Kiwi]] 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
</div>
--[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it was US specific, we have a whole article on country specific aspects of torture: [[Uses of torture in recent times]]. Why did I not move it? Mainly because there are hardly any citations in the information and secondly there is already a mention of some of this material in [[Uses of torture in recent times#United States]] and/or [[Torture and the United States]] --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW a misunderstanding of "Main Article" see {{tl|main article}} as used in the [[Torture#Medical torture]] section. Usually the summary page that calls main article would only contain the lead section of the main article not the other way around. Use {{tl|see also}} if you prefer. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:I disagree with your contentions. Neither topic is US specific. Prisons exist in every country, yet all countries to not use prisons to torture. There is not a single mention of the Supermax prisons recently conceptualized and built in the US (again covered in 60 Minutes on CBS last night where a former warden of a Federal Supermax prison was interviewed, as was a former prisoner confined to a Supermax facility. The warden was very frank and open, and talked about a number of the high-profile inmates and talked about forced feedings. Interviews of prison guards were done, too, and the type of some of the common complaints from inmates were detailed. It gave a lot of information.

:Your claim there were no citations to support anything in that is incorrect. Twice, links to a prison-rights data-collection site was given and I have the link to a pdf file of a federal lawsuit that detailed conditions in one SuperMax as experienced by the plaintiff. This website has a wealth of legitimate high-quality citation material.

:I have carefully reviewed the Torture article and there is not a single mention of psychiatric commitment, be it involuntary or no. Not to mention that the subject of the Soviet Union's use of involuntary psychiatric commitment to punish political dissidents, holding sane people captive for years, decades. I'm sorry I ended up having to get a bit of sleep last night rather than track down citations. I DID mark things with "fact|date" markup.

:Again, I ask why both of these sub-topics were deleted when your edit summaries only indicated the need to move them. [[User:A Kiwi|Kiwi]] 17:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not said in my edit summary I was moving them I said " Removed USA specific paragraphs" and "can be added to the the USA section ". The first removal was for text that did not have one citation. The second one is to an index page which does not support the sentences written and before every one is a {{tl|fact}} template indicating that someone thinks that more accurate citations are needed. But apart from the fact that neither carries suitable citations, the information is too specific to one country for this article. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To explain a little more about [[WP:V]] and [[WP:CITE]] take the first sentence of the second section:
:In today's prisons, what would be widely perceived as torture may be common place, but not widely understood.<nowiki>{{Fact|date=October 2007}} [[http://www.supermaxed.com/]]. </nowiki>
The sentence makes an assertion. see [[WP:PROVEIT]] "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be '''cited clearly and precisely''' to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. (my emphasise)" <nowiki> [[http://www.supermaxed.com/]] </nowiki> which turns into "[[http://www.supermaxed.com/]]" is not a clear and precise. See [[WP:CITE]] for more details on this, but as reference tags are being used in this article you should add your citations as reference tags. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#_note-CatC footnote 6 in the article] for how to cite a PDF file with paragraph noted so that someone can follow you citations. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 19:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

But I presume from your comment Kiwi "''I DID mark things with "fact|date" markup.''" that you already know that the citations were not adequate. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:Hello, Philip. I am the person who added the "fact|date" mark-ups so that people could see when the alert was added that the material needed citations or otherwise could not be retained. I then found and added the prison-related citations, but I did not remove the other as I do not think I am the be all and end all of expert researcher on this topic. I added BOTH to attract attention and encourage editing when I did not remove the mark-up as I did not think that a sole citation was adequate. What did you think of the citations when you accessed them up?

:You state that both of these sub-topics are solely USA topics, and again I state that you do not describe the global view WP aims for. Concerning prisons, I assume that other material will be added that deals with other countries. The fact that -I- have not done the work does not mean that there is no prison-based torture in other countries. Concerning psychiatric torture (coerced treatment and no legal protections to involuntary commitments) is also a world-wide problem. My adding the "fact|date" markup does not mean there are no sources, simply that they are not there at the moment.

:It seems as tho you were more interested in deleting this material (SuperMax prisons and other torture in prisons, in many countries around the world ... and dealing with "the physician as authority figure in a medically-based paternalistic power structure" is evident, now and then, in many countries besides the US) than in letting the material remain visible, in evidence, for long enough to have more citations added. 12 hours seems an unseemingly short time to let a cite mark-up be considered "to have remained too long".

:Neither sub-topic can be considered "should be in the USA section". Are you referring to the other WP article about torture today in various countries around the world? Problems of torture that extend over decades and centuries cannot be confined to "today", tho the SuperMax prisons are a current issue in the US, but torture, including police interrogation technique abuses, have been with us forever and forever will be.

:In short, neither sub-topic warranted immediate deletion, removal from view before a single other editor had a chance to see them and help edit them. I strongly disagree with your unilateral decision on behalf of all the editors concerned with the developement of this topic. [[User:A Kiwi|Kiwi]] 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete the information because of the topic I deleted it because it was USA specific (see the comments I made in the history).
*There are specific articles for this type of specific information -- and as this article is already over the recommended size limit -- it is IMO better off in one of those articles. The reason why I deleted it instead of moving it is because IMO the citations were inadequate.
*In the past, and I see no reason why it should have change, country specific allegations in this article lead to bloat as POV piled up on POV. Given the size of the article already it is better that specific information about post WWII torture allegations are not in this article. This was the reason why [[Uses of torture in recent times]] was created.
*Please consider what you would have thought if someone was to add all the same type of specific paragraphs about the same topics but wrote about them from the perspective of [[Western Samoa]] or [[Lichtenstein]] would you consider that that information should be on this large page or in [[Uses of torture in recent times]] and [[Medical torture]] and/or some other suitable article.
--[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 07:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

==Well over 200 articles about torture==
I have found a plethora of articles about torture. I find the "torture in modern times" article featuring a list of various countries to be an article that will quite possibly never last. Indeed, it was nominated for deletion last year, but has clung on, but it a very contentious battleground. On the other hand, there was a break away article created last year, JUST on torture in the US.
:I think you mean [[Uses of torture in recent times]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uses of torture in recent times]] and there was nowhere near a consensus to delete it. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 08:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I find I cannot add the category of Torture to this page, thus the page is locked from being properly linked to the Torture topic page. Who can be approached about adding this. There is one Category Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Physical_torture_techniques that should, perhaps, be merged with the torture category (?) as it has only 5 entries and seems a trifle over-narrowed range.

:I am not sure what you are saying here. This page is already in the [[:category:torture]]. [[:Category:Physical torture techniques]] is already a sub category of the torture category. There are a number of other country specific articles on torture see [[:Category:Torture by country]]. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 08:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a time for a template thingie - you know, the directory box to help lead people to various categories of a topic? I'm sorry I can't be more specific but my editing experience is limited. And when I go looking for wiki help and instruction pages, I can easily blow half a day and still not find what I'm looking for. [[User:A Kiwi|Kiwi]] 07:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

*At least the Torture Category needs to be added, otherwise we will continue to stumble around in the dark. It's a pathetic situation being cut off from its own Category. [[User:A Kiwi|Kiwi]] 07:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

:Please see the bottom of the article this article is currently in the following categories
:[[:Category:Crimes against humanity]]
:[[:Category:Human rights abuses]]
:[[:Category:Torture]]
:[[:Category:Violence]]
:[[:Category:State terrorism methods]]
:--[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 08:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

== Citations and focus ==

Citations are nice, but beginning an article by a lengthy quote from a UN convention makes us look as though we're not literate enough to define a very general and well-known topic. I remember that just before [[law]] was to be featured on the main page, there was a similar attempt to define the concept of laws by quoting a bunch of academics. It was quite appropriately replaced by the much simpler summary "Law is a system of social rules usually enforced through a set of structured institutions." The citations were kept, but were moved to a footnote instead of hogging so much space in the lead. This lead in this article would also benefit from a similar attempt to scatter the dense fog of over-definition.

And I believe that overall, the article seems to be suffering from legalism and recentism. The legal definitions should take up a lesser proportion of the article and more space should be devoted to cultural and historical aspects. The general reader does not need to be subjected to this much judicial minutiae from the very onset of the article.

[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] [[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]] 15:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

:Hello Peter long time no see. I disagree, Any definition that is given at the start of the article ought be a cited definition or we fall into the realm of [[WP:OR]] (for example the word severe is important in any definition) and UNCAT is probably the most widely used definition --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 21:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

::UNCAT's definition is only the most common in a ''legal'' context, and torture isn't just a legal term like [[manslaughter]] or [[tort]]. Lead sections also don't have to be this heavily cited as they're supposed to be summaries of the article as a whole. Citing the UN convention at length in the sections that actually deal specifically with the legal definitions of torture is very appropriate, but beginning the article by defining torture from a purely legalistic aspect is nothing short of undue weight, perhaps even POV.
::[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] [[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]] 08:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

== Does torture work? ==

I have frequently heard statements that torture is completely ineffective because people will say anything. I have also repeatedly heard histories of Vietnam in which POWs are described as saying that everyone will break sooner or later and tell everything. (though some used expedients such as giving real figures multiplied by a factor of three to keep the story consistent - whether torturers figured this out easily and humored it, another question...) I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. In any case, the topic doesn't seem to be touched at all by this article. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.15.116.59|70.15.116.59]] ([[User talk:70.15.116.59|talk]]) 03:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 
::Unfortunately, we can't really add much to the articel in this regard unless somebody finds a scinetific study as to whether or not it works. Admittedly, I would say that most people will tell you what you want to hear if you torture them. As for a war situation, I would probably tell the truth- if you lie and they later find out, then you're really in trouble. But anyway, we need reliable sourcs (yes I know this sucks and often blatantly obvious stuff gets chucked out because of this rule, but it's a rule). —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/211.30.134.111|211.30.134.111]] ([[User talk:211.30.134.111|talk]]) 12:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 

== slow torture ==

It should be considered that poisonings which work on a slow, unnoticeable level
should be considered torture. There exist people with genes who do not
experience pain (albeit very few), poisonings on such people may not be noticed
by them themselves since they experience no pain, but the result is often
worse than immediate painful torture. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.129.249.213|77.129.249.213]] ([[User talk:77.129.249.213|talk]]) 10:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 

==Merge from [[Enhanced interrogation techniques]]?==

Someone suggested [[Enhanced interrogation techniques]] should be merged here.
They screwed up their placement of the merge tag. I corrected it.

I disagree with this idea. There is no question in my mind that [[Enhanced interrogation techniques]] can stand on its own. There is no question in my mind that this merge would be a disservice to those readers who only want information on the [[Enhanced interrogation techniques]]. Nothing prevents them from clicking on the link in that article to [[torture]] to read about torture in general.

Cheers! [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] 22:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' for reasons given and because allegedly these techniques are not torture. We should not merge unless we have a myriad of legal sources stating [[Enhanced interrogation techniques]] constitute torture. [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]][[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]] 07:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for the same reasons as Nescio --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 13:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[Enhanced interrogation techniques]] is a term that was invented by the White House as a euphemism for [[torture]] they both refer to the same thing. From the torture article:
::"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, [...] when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." 
:Stress positions, waterboarding, blows with a stick and "bitch slaps" are the physical kind of "severe pain and suffering" Sleep deprivation and sexual humiliation are mental suffering. The Bush administration have themselves allowed it: "with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.".
:We cannot let political terms become articles, we merge some of the legality information and the techniques used and state in the [[Torture]] article that the Bush administration refers to it as "enhanced interrogation techniques". [[User:Wikipedian231|Wikipedian231]] 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::Please see the ECHR ruling on the [[five techniques]], "... Although the five techniques, as applied in combination, undoubtedly amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, although their object was the extraction of confessions, the naming of others and/or information and although they were used systematically, they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture as so understood. ..." it is not at all clear that the techniques used are torture. By including the information in this article and redirecting it, is to re-enforce the point of view that it is torture when there is no consensus that it is. IMHO that should not be done unless it is found to be so in a court of law, a judicial inquiry (an American equivalent to the [[Parker Report (1972)|Parker Report]]) or the consensus is reached that these techniques as used amounted to torture and not 'just' inhuman and degrading treatment. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 18:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

:::The articles should be '''merged'''. Like I pointed out above, this article is not merely supposed to be about torture as a legal concept. It's perfectly reasonable to use Philip's and Nomen's arguments in a court of law, or perhaps even in a mass media outlet, but not in an encyclopedia with NPOV as one of the central guidelines. Narrowing down the definitions according to various court rulings is not neutral and concluding that [[waterboarding]] isn't toruture would require far more clever argumentation than common sense.
:::[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] [[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]] 13:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

== Torturing tools ==

this also relates to torturing. i was going to do parable to some torturing tool. i think it has existed and it would be on Wiki. I havent found much there. it would be interesting to have it here. [[User:Cc..aa..ll|Cc..aa..ll]] 23:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Grosch's law

2007-11-07T05:19:45Z

Cc..aa..ll: /* Nomen = omen */

Alas, I can't give a citation, but I recall reading a third formulation of Grosch's Law: "no matter how fast the hardware gets, the software boys piss it away." My admittedly fuzzy memory is that the formulation is from Grosch himself, but again, I don't have a reference to cite. Does anyone else recall this version?
--[[User:209.234.74.28|209.234.74.28]] 16:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

== Nomen = omen ==
In our country Grosch was a silver coin (see Prague groschen). So. By accident there is a funny relation. For this guy made a statement about prizes;)
I just wonder, could it be mentioned here ??? It is as if "coins finally said something usefull" ;) And grosch is also flickered horse name.
[[User:Cc..aa..ll|Cc..aa..ll]] 03:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I added it. But i do not know how better to call the section. Section should be there for it is something from different keg. [[User:Cc..aa..ll|Cc..aa..ll]] 05:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Grosch's law

2007-11-07T05:18:17Z

Cc..aa..ll:

'''Grosch's law''' is the following observation about [[computer]] performance made by [[Herb Grosch]] in [[1965]]:

:"There is a fundamental rule, which I modestly call ''Grosch's law'', giving added economy only as the square root of the increase in speed -- that is, to do a calculation 10 times as cheaply you must do it 100 times as fast."

This ''[[adage|law]]'' is more commonly stated as

:Computer performance increases as the square of the cost. If you want to do it twice as cheaply, you have to do it four times faster.

The ''[[law]]'' can also be interpreted as meaning that computers present [[economy of scale|economies of scale]]: Bigger computers are more economical. This contradicts ''[[Moore's law]]'', which states that many small computers are better than a few big ones.

The relevance of Grosch's law today is a debated subject. In his book, The Squandered Computer, Paul Strassmann asserts that Grosch's law is now "thoroughly disproved" and serves "as a reminder that the history of economics of computing has had an abundance of unsupported misperceptions." [http://www.strassmann.com/pubs/datamation0297/] Grosch himself has stated that the law was more useful in the 1960s and 1970s than it is today. He originally intended the law to be a "means for pricing computing services." [http://www.techweb.com/wire/networking/160701379] Grosch also explained that more sophisticated ways of figuring out costs for computer installations mean that his law has limited applicability for today's IT managers.

==Memoization==
[[Grosch]] also stands for small silver coins. Which were used in middle ages. This thing relates to Herb Grosh's statement which also mentions prize (economy). This might remind about nomen est omen saying, which in given context seem to be [[humorous]].

Although [[memoization]] is used mainly in informatics. Meaing remains. Trying to remember one fact reminds of another, similar one.
[[User:Cc..aa..ll|Cc..aa..ll]] 05:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

==References==
* [http://www.strassmann.com/pubs/datamation0297/ Will big spending on computers guarantee profitability?], Paul Strassmann - Excerpts from The Squandered Computer.
*[http://www.techweb.com/wire/networking/160701379/ Author Of Grosch's Law Going Strong At 87], W. David Gardner, TechWeb News, April 12, 2005 - article discussing Grosch's Law and Herb Grosch's personal career.
* [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.10/cloudware.html George Gilder's Article on "Cloudware"] Computing Discusses that Grosch's Law may be correct after all.

[[Category:Adages]]

{{compu-stub}}

[[fr:Loi de Grosch]]
[[it:Legge di Grosch]]
[[ja:グロッシュの法則]]

Talk:Grosch's law

2007-11-07T03:42:54Z

Cc..aa..ll:

Talk:Agent–object–verb

2007-11-07T03:13:28Z

Cc..aa..ll:

== Inconsistency ==

There is an inconsistency between the [[V2 word order]] page and the [[Subject Object Verb]] page. The [[V2 word order]] page states, "in otherwise SOV languages, such as German and Dutch, the verb is placed after the object." The [[Subject Object Verb]] page (this page) states, "German is basically SVO, but employs SOV in subordinate clauses." Considering only main clauses, is German an SOV or SVO language?

I have placed a copy of this comment on the [[V2 word order]] page.

:I have changed it to the following: "[[German language|German]] and [[Dutch language|Dutch]] are considered SVO in conventional typology and SOV in [[generative grammar]]." Actually we don't have to mention conventional typology if all linguists have agreed that they are SOV languages. - [[User:TAKASUGI Shinji|TAKASUGI Shinji]] 01:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

:SVO, unless the sentence contains a [[modal auxiliary verb]], thus: "I drink beer" translates as "Ich trinke Bier" (SVO), while "I have drunk beer" translates as "Ich habe Bier getrunken" (SAuxOV). [[User:Wakuran|惑乱分からん]] 12:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In portuguese, "Sam as comeu" is wrong. It would be "Sam comeu-as" which changes everything.

:I removed portuguese from the list of languages which "are SVO, but use SOV when a pronoun is used as the (direct or indirect) object". This is not a generic characteristic of the portuguese language, although it may occur in brazilian portuguese.[[User:Prfigueiredo|Prfigueiredo]] 23:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

== watashi wa hako wo akemasu ==

Might this better be "watashi wa hako ''o'' akemasu"? I'm no expert, but I have been told that "wo" when used as an object-marker is Romanized as "o". But I'm no expert. -- [[user:Cevlakohn]] 7 Sept 2006
:I think it's romanized as "wo", though it's generally pronounced as "o". [[User:Wakuran|惑乱分からん]] 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is probably splitting hairs, but are we supposed to use a particular type of transcription like IPA or just the native Romanizing conventions? The IPA should include the tonal qualities, although I don't know that Japanese is a tonal language. [[User:JonathanDailey|JonathanDailey]] 04:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:No, Japanese is not. It has a [[Japanese pitch accent|pitch accent]], though. [[User:Wakuran|惑乱分からん]] 16:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

== Redundancy ==

I really don't mean any disrespect, but do we really need all those examples of Sam ate oranges in the other languages. It seems very redundant to me to include so many examples of something best represented by changing the word order of an English sentence. This is the English article after all. I in no way mean this from an ethnocentric sense. It's just that all those examples get in the way of (my) coherent reading of the article. Because it is more important that this article talks about the actual topic as opposed to examples and what other languages use this word order, if we needed the examples couldn't we at least move them to the bottom of the page, to show illustration of the concept after the whole thing has been described, as well as moving the language list to the bottom. It makes more relative sense IMHO. I hope that I can actually get a reply, so I can discuss this topic.
[[User:Ixfalia]] 15:52, 13 February 2007 (PST)

== what are they ==

objects are the main part of the sentence and the object in the follow up of the sentence —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.67.136.50|71.67.136.50]] ([[User talk:71.67.136.50|talk]]) 22:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC) 

== V2 word order in English ==

The article says that SOV is occasionally employed in English 'under poetic license especially by William Shakespeare'. I'm not an expert, but I had always assumed that V2 word order was once a feature common to several Germanic languages including English and that it was still permissible in the vernacular of Elizabethan English. Does anybody know?
[[User:Rdr0|Rdr0]] 20:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

== mathematics - sov - postfix notation ==
maybe some relation with postfix notation can be raised.
person thing relation
12 35 +
english is infix
person relation thing
1 + 25
there has been some people who though same. googling SOV postfix notation gets you there. thanks.
btw. prefix(
polish notation -
+ 2 3 - sum two three -
printf("subjects", objects) - well there it is a bit recursive for stuff in string " " relates the objects ... ;)
) is easy to parse
[[User:cc..aa..ll]