Talk:CDK (programming library)

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

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Merge[edit]

Better yet, merge into a conventionally-named CDK (programming library). Tedickey (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not much discussion to date, but this suggestion makes sense. It's odd that the "... (Vexus)" article doesn't even mention Vexus explicitly, leaving one to ponder how that CDK differs from "... (Mike Glover)" without reading the latter article. I think you're right to ask for a merge of both to CDK (programming library). D. Brodale (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could explain it, but it's hard to avoid bias in an initial exposition of the material. So it would be nice if someone reasonably knowledgable about the general area did that. Here is a hint of the amount of difference. Tedickey (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the lack of activity here and there, it may be that there isn't anyone else available with such knowledge ... ? If I wasn't clear above, I support the merge recommendation, though your reply underscores the need to sort out finer detail post-merge. I'd suggest being bold and merging, unless you'd like to tap the shoulders of any others who may have made significant contributions to either article in the past. D. Brodale (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can certainly do that (and agree having the split article is a nuisance) Tedickey (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]