Talk:Pike (programming language)
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
I wonder why LPC wasn't mentioned here, as I call pike a reallife implementation of LPC. And, not to forget, pike was called uLPC in it's earlier versions.
- Its just not a very big article, I'm going to try to find time to make it more complete, including information on pike's history. Generic Player 18:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
C style vs C++ style syntax?Edit
Should the article really have been changed to say C++ syntax instead of C syntax? Off the top of my head I can't think of any syntax that pike and C++ have in common that isn't taken from C. The curly braces, semicolons, parenthesis, for, while, do, switch, if/else and more are all just like they are in C. The object oriented portions of pike don't use C++ syntax: classes, constructors, destructors, inheritance and access control are all done using different syntax. Generic Player 18:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Pike isn't structurally typed. Although you don't need to explicitly delcare inheritance to allow one object type to be passed to a function expecting another object type, the language does not check that object types are structurally equivilent. Pike merely simplifies all object type declarations to "object", meaning you can pass any object anywhere that an object is called for, without it being nominally or structurally equivilent. So pike's object typing is neither nominative or structural, object types are weakly typed, or maybe even untyped would be more accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
just like python, pike does check the type when the value is actually operated on. trying to do operations with incompatible types will result in a descriptive type error and not in undefined behavior as weak types would allow. - 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Gotpike.pngEdit
Image:Gotpike.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.