Content deleted Content added
the peer review request was not completed; removing template |
→Page Is Irrelevent: This page needs an independent academic to take it in hand |
||
Line 82:
:Seconded - this entire article is clearly VERY biased. [[User:EboMike|EboMike]] ([[User talk:EboMike|talk]]) 20:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
::Thirded... While something like this could be useful (and it actually did answer a question I was looking up), it is in no way encyclopedic in nature. Something like this belongs on a tech advice site like stackoverflow, not wikipedia. [[User:Potatman|Potatman]] ([[User talk:Potatman|talk]]) 16:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Fourthed. It's an unbalanced article, and it appears to be not consistent about trying to compare contemporaneous language specifications, a clear indication of poor research. (It doesn't belong on StackOverflow though; it would be ''rapidly'' closed as flamebait.) It's a shame, as a balanced comparison would be a genuinely useful thing, but I get the impression that most people preferring one or the other regard the trade-offs they are making as reasonable (assuming they don't go for outright language partisan fanboyism foolishness). Unfortunately, the proportion of ''academic'' — i.e., properly peer reviewed — references used is very small; having more independent voices describing the differences would be helpful here because of the languages' shared history. Or the core language designers from either side; I doubt they'd indulge in the sort of poor scholarship displayed here. [[Special:Contributions/82.42.214.208|82.42.214.208]] ([[User talk:82.42.214.208|talk]]) 01:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I found it very informative though, and filled with useful information <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/132.183.102.105|132.183.102.105]] ([[User talk:132.183.102.105|talk]]) 23:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
| |||