It does seem odd to have two languages, but with .Net, etc we have seen the concept of multiple syntaxes boiling down to the same bytecode take off- a lot of developers like the flexibility this brings. Lingo just seems like it evolved completely separate of most other mainstream languages...and for me a more unified syntax would be easier.To be entirely honest I don't see the point in including Javascript as a second scripting language for Director (or even adding a second language at all). I know it's been put in to speed up development progress and the ease of using an establish, widespread scripting language for projects without learning a whole new language, but is Lingo really *that* hard to migrate to from Javascript? What's easier to understand?
the 1 based array thing still irritates me... guess I just learned base 0 arrays and it stuck as the 'right' way.
for (i = 1; i < 11; i++) { ... }
or
repeat with i = 1 to 10 ... end repeat
or in php:
for (var $i = 0; $i < 10; $i++{
...
}or in java:
for ( int i=0; i < 10; i++){
...
}or you can do other really cool stuff in java like multiple assigment and increment/decrement, which I am not sure you can do even in ECMA syntaxes:
for (int i=0, int j=10; i < j; i++, j--){
...
}
One other thing that would be helpful in lingo that I hope the JS addition brings is the unary operators like ++ and -- or perhaps even += , -=, *=, etc...
Oooh, and maybe even multiple variable assigment at once: varA = varB = varC = 10;
I kind of like it since I use PHP, Javascript, used to use Java, and frequently use Actionscript as well. It gets irritating having to change gears to 4 different languages within an hour. It would be nice if I could spend the time I normally use getting used to going from one language to another on actual coding rather than deleting semicolons and the like. I'll have to see how much slower it runs...and how many bugs it has... before I use it for production though.
The only real benefit I can see is for Flash ActionScripters coming over to Director development and having a more-or-less identical scripting language in both - it's all based on ECMAScript after all - but as I said is Lingo really that difficult to pick up?
Why would an option to make the package attractive to a broader base of people be considered an insult? Ultimately it could mean Director getting a lot of those old bugs fixed if it attracts enough focus from Macromedia. Besides, I think Lingo isn't really taken seriously by more traditional coders. My friend who is a hardcore Java guy took a look at some lingo and heard description ('love child of smalltalk and lisp') and wrote it off as an anomaly...prompting the rhetorical question 'how can a language be taken seriously if it was designed for nonprogrammers to use?'Besides, I would've thought that knowing more than one scripting/programming language would be more attractive? Also I personally feel it's a little slap in the face to those of us who've spent the time learning multiple languages and building up a diverse set of skills.
I am not knocking Lingo...I love it... Inclusion of some standards could just brings some more street-cred to director coding ( yes, I just said cred, shame on me :0) ).
~Mathew
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
