Content deleted Content added
Line 197:
I'm sure programmers more-experienced than I will have caught things I've missed. But the article is too low-level; it overlooks the broader issues. [[User:WilliamSommerwerck|WilliamSommerwerck]] ([[User talk:WilliamSommerwerck|talk]]) 20:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
::(not sure what/who the above comment is aimed at but here goes) No, it is not obvious that a language with more features are "superior". The objective of this article is not to judge which is superior. You are setting up a straw-man argument. A wikipedia article is about verifiable facts. This article should only under exceptional circumstances label anything as a "deficiency" - and should only do so if there are ample authoritative sources for such a claim. Whether a language supports a specific (or equivalent) feature, or even how it supports a given programming discipline (functional programming, dynamic programs, object oriented programs, numeric or financial applications etc) can be demonstrated by careful examples. However, turning the article into a survey or synthesis of how the languages are actually used would violate WP:NOR. That said, I'm all for creating a more ''discipline'' oriented article (as opposed to a feature-oriented article). It is, however, very difficult to do so without introducing original research. [[User:Useerup|Useerup]] ([[User talk:Useerup|talk]]) 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
| |||