On 2/6/08, Martin Bähr wrote: > > "Pike supports public and private object attributes." > > -> "Pike has better support for object-oriented programming." > > > > ... and yet it is stated as fact on the website. Why not just state the > facts > > and let the reader interpret as he sees fit? > > because then we would need 3 paragraphs to explain the facts. > > i am happy to have this discussion though because i do want the summary > to be acurate. I believe there should probably be a footnote or a link to a page that justifies the statements. As a limited user of python and an avid fan of pike I'd like to assert that nearly everyone who is very familiar with pikes object interfaces would agree that it has one of the strongest object models out there. There's no question in my mind that it's "better." I'm pretty sure my assessment is as objective as my opinions can get. -- If riding in an airplane is flying, then riding in a boat is swimming.

On 2/6/08, Martin Bähr <mbaehr@email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

> "Pike supports public and private object attributes."
> -> "Pike has better support for object-oriented programming."
>
> ... and yet it is stated as fact on the website. Why not just state the facts
> and let the reader interpret as he sees fit?

because then we would need 3 paragraphs to explain the facts.

i am happy to have this discussion though because i do want the summary
to be acurate.

I believe there should probably be a footnote or a link to a page that justifies the statements.

As a limited user of python and an avid fan of pike I'd like to assert that nearly everyone who is very familiar with pikes object interfaces would agree that it has one of the strongest object models out there. There's no question in my mind that it's "better." I'm pretty sure my assessment is as objective as my opinions can get.

--
If riding in an airplane is flying, then riding in a boat is swimming.