I am late getting into the fray because I expected to see it coming to the surface much before now, or I may have overlooked it (my apologies in that case). In very simple terms I would equate scripting to MapBasic in the MapBasic Window or in a WOR (MB_WOR) and programming to a MB application (MB_MBX).
I know that there were some attempts (who has heard of them or remembers them?) at introducing "unpredictability" or "interactivity" in theatre plays. Their scripts were written including variants at some points. But it did not really caught up. I like that "origin" of the term from the theater. Even if it is written with elements of a programming language, a script is a linear development where each command is interpreted sequentially one after the other and will work only for some "parent" software. MB_WOR needs MI to work, and will do not a thing without MI. A non-linear package of instructions requires an intermediate step to transform its complex flowchart into a package of instructions that some software can understand (MB compiler to transform a .MB into a .MBX) or that some operating system can treat as stand alone program (a VB program becomes a .EXE). The question of the "distance" between a programming language and pure machine language is quite beyond what I think the basic difference between scripting and programming is in fact. Jacques Paris _______________________________________________ MapInfo-L mailing list MapInfo-L@lists.directionsmag.com http://www.directionsmag.com/mailman/listinfo/mapinfo-l
