This article manages to mention just about every insignificant detail (who cares about the crappy IDEs they ship with?) and almost none of the actual properties of the chip!
You would expect at the very least memory comparisons, clock speeds, and power consumptions. Maybe a mention of timers, ADCs, UARTs, etc.
I think it concentrated more on the aspects of how pleasant each is to use. The analysis was light on the technical side because ladyada targets more hobbyists (like myself :D ) and prototype creation rather than people that want to create a product that will be manufactured, reproduced and distributed on a large scale.
Though I haven't used PIC personally though, I have used AVR before, and found it quite pleasant and flexible, though in all fairness I can't compare it to PIC. I will say though that there seems to be more resources and documentation on PIC than AVR (I bough a really good book on embedded devices that was based on PIC, and though the examples were helpful universally, they were targeting the PIC crowd specifically.)
You'd think so.... I have no idea why the embedded world is so into what IDE they can use. Too many hardware engineers turned firmware engineers wanting an easy solution?
You would expect at the very least memory comparisons, clock speeds, and power consumptions. Maybe a mention of timers, ADCs, UARTs, etc.