Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science

Draft: Brainchip

could someone review the Draft:Brainchip page? Birdmanoftech (talk), 13 January 2023 (UTC)

(programming) vs. (computer programming)

Is there any significance to articles distinguished with (programming) (e.g, Property (programming)), and those distinguished with (computer programming) (e.g, Method (computer programming))? Is there any consensus around a preferred distinguisher, such that I might bring articles into conformance? Thanks all! Tule-hog (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Keygen, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Requested move at Talk:Neuromorphic engineering#Requested move 24 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Neuromorphic engineering#Requested move 24 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Should permalinks to Compiler Explorer be removed?

Several articles link to outputs of Compiler Explorer, which are in form https://godbolt.org/z/[0-9A-Za-z]+. I think these do not meet the standards at WP:EL, especially the bare ones. It is an unaffiliated tool. They can also desynchronize with the code sample in the article. Also, could the uses of it to demonstrate a particular behavior or compilers be considered Wikipedia:OR? Naruyoko (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the use of it as a reference for claims like "since some compilers hardcode symbols such as malloc and free" [1] is indeed OR. Also, its use as an inline link on statements like "the code below may be explored interactively here" [2] clearly violates WP:ELBODY. Its inclusion in Comparison of online source code playgrounds may be ok, but the other article-space links all look dubious to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a template that just shows what is in the godbolt links ? Sohom (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the point of creating a template to link to a site that we mostly should not link to? Or did you mean, a way to format assembly code without using that site at all? I thought we already had that and it would not solve the problems identified above. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant the latter. I think displaying the disassembled asm beside the compiled source code will/might make understanding our prose in certain computing topics easier especially for peeps without intricate knowledge of compilers. The spirit of WP:ELBODY is to prevent spam links, godbolt is the farthest thing from spam, it's a open-source educational resource/sandbox. If we can't directly link to their output (per the guidelines), creating a template to showcase the expected output (show the code and the asm code side-by-side) would be the next best thing. Sohom (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)