Return to Question

Jul 20 update: question has been unlocked per discussion in chat and reworded as follows:

Looking for a definitive answer from a primary or secondary source for why did (notably) Java and C# decide to have a static method as their entry point – rather than representing an application instance by an instance of an Application class, with the entry point being an appropriate constructor?
...

• Feedback on revised wording would be much appreciated.

I asked a question about the historical perspective of a feature in C# and Java.

It was closed as “not constructive”. Needless to say, I disagree. But more importantly, I don’t understand the reasons. I fail to see what distinguishes this question from, say, “Why does F# have an interactive mode but not C#?”

In fact, I was hoping for the same kind of answer. The latter question had the enormous luck of having Eric Lippert answer it authoritatively – but the same kind of answer would fit my own question perfectly.

So what’s the criterion here? Was I just unlucky / the other question lucky? Or is there a distinction that I fail to see? Or could I improve the way the question is asked? I’d be more than happy to.

Jul 20 update: question has been unlocked per discussion in chat and reworded as follows:

Looking for a definitive answer from a primary or secondary source for why did (notably) Java and C# decide to have a static method as their entry point – rather than representing an application instance by an instance of an Application class, with the entry point being an appropriate constructor?
...

• Feedback on revised wording would be much appreciated.

I asked a question about the historical perspective of a feature in C# and Java.

It was closed as “not constructive”. Needless to say, I disagree. But more importantly, I don’t understand the reasons. I fail to see what distinguishes this question from, say, “Why does F# have an interactive mode but not C#?”

In fact, I was hoping for the same kind of answer. The latter question had the enormous luck of having Eric Lippert answer it authoritatively – but the same kind of answer would fit my own question perfectly.

So what’s the criterion here? Was I just unlucky / the other question lucky? Or is there a distinction that I fail to see? Or could I improve the way the question is asked? I’d be more than happy to.

Jul 20 update: question has been unlocked per discussion in chat and reworded as follows:

Looking for a definitive answer from a primary or secondary source for why did (notably) Java and C# decide to have a static method as their entry point – rather than representing an application instance by an instance of an Application class, with the entry point being an appropriate constructor?
...

I asked a question about the historical perspective of a feature in C# and Java.

It was closed as “not constructive”. Needless to say, I disagree. But more importantly, I don’t understand the reasons. I fail to see what distinguishes this question from, say, “Why does F# have an interactive mode but not C#?”

In fact, I was hoping for the same kind of answer. The latter question had the enormous luck of having Eric Lippert answer it authoritatively – but the same kind of answer would fit my own question perfectly.

So what’s the criterion here? Was I just unlucky / the other question lucky? Or is there a distinction that I fail to see? Or could I improve the way the question is asked? I’d be more than happy to.

Jul 20 update: question has been unlocked per discussion in chat and reworded as follows:

Looking for a definitive answer from a primary or secondary source for why did (notably) Java and C# decide to have a static method as their entry point – rather than representing an application instance by an instance of an Application class, with the entry point being an appropriate constructor?
...

• Feedback on revised wording would be much appreciated.

I asked a question about the historical perspective of a feature in C# and Java.

It was closed as “not constructive”. Needless to say, I disagree. But more importantly, I don’t understand the reasons. I fail to see what distinguishes this question from, say, “Why does F# have an interactive mode but not C#?”

In fact, I was hoping for the same kind of answer. The latter question had the enormous luck of having Eric Lippert answer it authoritatively – but the same kind of answer would fit my own question perfectly.

So what’s the criterion here? Was I just unlucky / the other question lucky? Or is there a distinction that I fail to see? Or could I improve the way the question is asked? I’d be more than happy to.

I asked a question about the historical perspective of a feature in C# and Java.

It was closed as “not constructive”. Needless to say, I disagree. But more importantly, I don’t understand the reasons. I fail to see what distinguishes this question from, say, “Why does F# have an interactive mode but not C#?”

In fact, I was hoping for the same kind of answer. The latter question had the enormous luck of having Eric Lippert answer it authoritatively – but the same kind of answer would fit my own question perfectly.

So what’s the criterion here? Was I just unlucky / the other question lucky? Or is there a distinction that I fail to see? Or could I improve the way the question is asked? I’d be more than happy to.

Jul 20 update: question has been unlocked per discussion in chat and reworded as follows:

Looking for a definitive answer from a primary or secondary source for why did (notably) Java and C# decide to have a static method as their entry point – rather than representing an application instance by an instance of an Application class, with the entry point being an appropriate constructor?
...

I asked a question about the historical perspective of a feature in C# and Java.

It was closed as “not constructive”. Needless to say, I disagree. But more importantly, I don’t understand the reasons. I fail to see what distinguishes this question from, say, “Why does F# have an interactive mode but not C#?”

In fact, I was hoping for the same kind of answer. The latter question had the enormous luck of having Eric Lippert answer it authoritatively – but the same kind of answer would fit my own question perfectly.

So what’s the criterion here? Was I just unlucky / the other question lucky? Or is there a distinction that I fail to see? Or could I improve the way the question is asked? I’d be more than happy to.