Talk:Plain Old C++ Object
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plain Old C++ Object article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is this article just an advertisement for PocoCapsule software ?
editI have just improved a bit the quality of this article Plain Old C++ Object, but it seems this article looks like a fake. I need help from other software skilled contributors to check the relevance of this article. I hope this is the good place to post this request.
First, it was the first time I heard about 'Plain Old C++ Object'. The term Plain Old Java Object (POJO) has been invented in 2000(http://martinfowler.com/bliki/POJO.html). Then the term Plain old data structure (POD) has been invented. And finally the term Plain Old CLR Object (same POCO abbreviation). But I do not really see the need for such term 'Plain Old C++ Object' in C++. However, the GCC wiki mention POD and could refer to POCO standing for Plain Old C++ Object...
Second, this article has been written in 2007 by User:Kjin101, the owner of PocoCapsule software. His contributions was about adding links to his software project. This Wikipedia account has been use just for a couple a days, and has not been used to do something else.
My personal conclusion is that the term 'Plain Old C++ Object' has been invented by User:Kjin101, and he has created this article in order to add links to his software project...
We may add a banner or mention that in the article... What do you think?
Oliver H (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- The concept of 'Plain Old XXX Object' seems to be in the air. The articles at Plain old data structure and Plain Old Java Object appear to be real articles with many contributors. Your own recent change to the present article looks like a big improvement. My guess is that better references could be found for Plain Old C++ Object if someone were to spend the time. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- The use of plain old C++ object and POD is at least as old in C++ as it is in Java. There's an article from June 2000 that says C++ objects can be divided into 5 categories. The first is plain old data (POD): "PODs are minimal data structures that are equivalent to C structures and are equal in efficiency to C code". ("Performance Issues in Object-Oriented Programming", in Jacques Malenfant; Sabine Moisan; Ana Moreira (7 May 2003). Object-Oriented Technology: ECOOP 2000 Workshop Reader: ECOOP 2000 Workshops, Panels, and Posters, Sophia Antipolis and Cannes, France, June 12-16, 2000 Proceedings. Springer. pp. 90. ISBN 978-3-540-41513-8.) StarryGrandma (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)