On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> If you're going to base it on Javascript, at least make it > Coffeescript-like. I also agree that some basic parallelism primitives > would be great; it is probably possible to build these into a > Coffeescript-like dialect using JS under the hood (though they'd probably > optimize even better if you could implement them natively instead of in > JS). I think you are underestimating the value of using a standard widely-deployed language. I love languages as much as the next guy---but our previous learning environment (Sugar) has had incredible difficulty getting local support outside the US because it is written in *Python*. Python is "not a commercially viable language" (not my words) and you can't even take university classes in Python in many countries (say, Uruguay) because there is no company behind it and no one who will give you a "certificate" for having learned it. This is very sad, but the true state of affairs. JavaScript is not perfect, but at heart it is a functional object-oriented language which is pretty darn close to Good Enough. There are huge benefits to using a language which is supported by training materials all over the web, university systems outside the US, etc, etc. I am open to *very* slight extensions to JavaScript -- OMeta/JS and quasiquote might squeeze in -- but they have to be weighed against their costs. Subsets are even more problematic -- once you start subsetting, then you are throwing away compatibility with all the wealth of JavaScript libraries out there, in addition to confusing potential contributors who are trying to type in examples they found in some book. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net )
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep