Thanks Mnemonic, that's much clearer.

...I was thinking more about this. Two truths; 1) Game developers (i.e. The Ones Most Likely To...) are most likely artists and writers first, programmers second. 2) WM doesn't implement full C++ so there's no point in learning the entire language, but it gives you more than enough to make a magical gaming experience. Put these two together and you have what attracts game developers to WM.
The problem is that even with WM, the developer MUST have, or acquire at least a modicum of understanding about object-oriented thinking, then expressing that in an esoteric language. This is a large expectation and I wonder how many developers have failed because they could not make that leap from artist to programmer.
Sure, you, Meta and others do much to help the Newbie, but I can't help thinking that a more example-and-explanation based approach to the core documentation would help enormously. For instance - there is nothing in the docs to insist that a Method() would be needed in an attached script, or indeed why. This is not a criticism, but a suggestion - I wonder if WM would be even more popular if its documentation became more programmer-to-artist than its present tendency to be programmer-to-(you-already-know-all-about-OOP-Right?)-programmer. Time to complete the 'Advanced' tutorials, perhaps?
Can't help thinking that it's in your interests also. If inventive artists and writers are necessary for commercially successful games, then more artistic Muties would likely bring more commercial success, which in turn would bring more donations. I wonder how many do not donate because their games don't make a fiscal surplus? I wonder too how much less busy you would be answering case-by-case issues on the technical forum?
Cheers,
Kaz