Talk:Pike (programming language)

LPC
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?
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)

Requested move
Pike programming language → Pike (programming language) – Conformance with WP naming conventions atanamir (see discussion).

Structrual Typing
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 74.115.21.120 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

You need to ask for stronger typing explicitly by using #pragma strict_types. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.15.98 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 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. - 221.122.43.98 (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gotpike.png
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 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rob Pike
I always assumed Rob Pike (at bell labs) was the person who created this language. Family Guy Guy (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Uncited material
Uncited material - as per WP:BURDEN, please do not re-add without providing valid sources, such behavior is considered disruptive editing, and falls under WP:DDE.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * And who are you talking to, or, what edit do you have on mind? —Mykhal (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to MUD topic doesn't make sense
The current state of this article must be incorrect. It's a redirect to a page that barely mentions Pike in passing. That might make sense if it were a really unimportant topic but that just isn't the case here.

Pike is a programming language used for real-world applications other than MUDs (though that was it's origin)

It's a notable programming language on it's own and it's absence from wikipedia is really puzzling.

There are several repositories under the pikelang organization on github, with many contributors: https://github.com/pikelang

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31453255 has a whole bunch of comments from people involved with Pike over the years.

It's covered better (but still not well) on https://about.psyc.eu/LPC than on enwiki. 20after4 (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * None of those are reliable sources. On Wikipedia, dedicated articles require significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) czar  03:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This does not justify vanishing the info and turning it to a redir to some much more less relevant section elsewhere. —Mykhal (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * .. btw, do you think that the home page is fake? —Mykhal (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We redirect articles as an alternative to deletion. The article does not cite reliable, secondary source. This has nothing to do with whether the programming language's homepage is "fake" but whether other sources have considered the subject noteworthy enough to write about. czar  10:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to MUD topic doesn't make sense
Why the heck do people keep redirecting this title to a stupid MUD page, where Pike is **barely** mentioned, when the standalone article has plenty more useful information and could enhanced by more people going forwrd. It makes ZERO sense. Can't an editor with some authority step in here and make things right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.121.207 (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)