Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Kevin Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We believe programming should be like > creativity, like drawing or writing, not like arcane. Bravo ! -- Vous parlez français ? faites un tour sur le groupe francophone ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jetez un oeil sur RevoBlog ! _

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (ratherlong)

jbv wrote: > I should have written : > - do you really think that the current Rev / MC IDEs allow us to EASILY > maintain & > debug scripts with hundreds or thousands of lines ? > > BTW I know that very long scripts run without any problem in Rev. > My point wasn't the execution of scripts, but r

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (ratherlong)

Ok guys, I should have written : - do you really think that the current Rev / MC IDEs allow us to EASILY maintain & debug scripts with hundreds or thousands of lines ? BTW I know that very long scripts run without any problem in Rev. My point wasn't the execution of scripts, but rather the abilit

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (rather long)

- do you really think that the current Rev / MC IDEs allow us to maintain & debug scripts with hundreds or thousands of lines ? Of course not... But Salut, JB, And my I say that I agree wholehearted with every word you wrote...until you ended with the statements I included above: 1. The stack

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (rather long)

The strongest argument for the legitimacy of Transcript is an army of well-marketed world-class apps made with it. ...with the Made With Run Rev logo in every About box.:{`) -- Rob Cozens CCW, Serendipity Software Company http://www.oenolog.net/who.htm "And I, which was two fooles, do so grow t

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (rather long)

- do you really think that the current Rev / MC IDEs allow us to maintain & debug scripts with hundreds or thousands of lines ? Of course not... But CodeWarrior (for instance) does... So in conclusion, I'm tempted to say that the language itself doesn't look amateurish at all (and DOESN'T need to

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (rather long)

jbv wrote: > The main point I want to make is that this discussion about introducing > C-like syntax in x-Talk is totally pointless, especially if the only > goal is to make Transcript look less amateurish... Amen. The strongest argument for the legitimacy of Transcript is an army of well-market

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (rather long)

> > >> because we have a > >> language that thinks like we do, not like the compiler does." > Well, even if I somehow agree with the above sentence (because I more or less understand what it implies), I must confess I don't really like it... IMHO computers and languages DO NOT THINK. Only progra

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Feb 10, 2004, at 5:29 PM, Frank Leahy wrote: On Wednesday, February 11, 2004, at 01:14 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Supporting JavaScript is an interesting idea. I probably wouldn't used it, but I wonder if it would bring others to Revolution. And the new Director supports JavaScript along

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

As someone else mentioned, "x = 1" already has meaning in xTalk Frank, et al: For the record, I'm not just waxing theoretical here: look through the handlers in any component of Serendipity Library and you will find statements were I use "x = 1" [or more likely "x is 1", but syntactically equi

Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

From: Ed McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2004/02/11 Wed AM 09:37:31 EST > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: > > Dan said: > > I've resisted comment as long as I can. It's torture. > > Most of my feelings have been expressed by others, but there is one > point that I think is perhaps under-

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Kevin wrote, >The syntax is neither amateurish, nor only for beginners. The... >We're not about to spend time making our virtually self-commenting code... Hurray! Rich Herz Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering Dept. University of California, San Diego _

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On 11/2/04 12:27 am, Dan Shafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: because we have a language that thinks like we do, not like the compiler does." Bien cordialement, Pierre Sahores 100, rue de Paris F - 77140 Nemours [EMAIL PROTECTED] GSM: +33 6 03 95 77 70 Pro: +33 1 41 60 52 68 Dom: +33 1 64 4

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Rob, > JB, and anyone else enamored of C: > > Program all the externals you desire! > > But if you're only using C for externals, there is no need for C > syntax in Transcriptand there isn't anyway, IMFO. > -- 100% agreed. What I meant was : use Transcript for top quality front ends, and C

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Wednesday, February 11, 2004, at 05:55 AM, Rob Cozens wrote: Maybe it should be "x := 1" for Pascal programmers; or how about "x = 1;" for PL/1 programmers? Maybe it could be "x :=) 1" for I just dumped my girl-friend... mb ___ use-revolution mail

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

although a C and asm compiler would be nice, C has this nice feature for other language usage... on mouseup c{ do some c code real fast ; asm{ do some assembler code at warpspeed; } } See? No need for those overcomplicated externals... ;) -=- X

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On 11/2/04 12:27 am, Dan Shafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nope. I'm with those who say to RunRev, "The syntax is beautiful. We > don't care if 'real programmers' (whoever *they* are) think it's > amateurish. We'll be happy to keep making a living by writing apps > faster and cheaper than all th

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

the association of Xtalk and C can lead to a tremendous power in high end projects, Rev & Xtalk being used to build top quality front ends (with unbeatable productivity & cost ratios) while C being used in externals JB, and anyone else enamored of C: Program all the externals you desire! But if y

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Thirty years ago I wrote a proposal for using lisp for a distributed control system project. Hi Dar, Thirty years ago I was responsible for procurement and development of Oakland Police Department's MIS. While the City of Oakland DP Dept. was a COBOL shop, Boeing Computer Systems had just de

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

I wish xTalk had some ADDITIONAL constructs that made it more accessible to computer scientists and professional programmers. Both because without them xTalk look amateurish, and therefore less likely to be used by professionals, and because it would make it significantly easier to port code fr

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

I agree wholeheartedly. Here's my rant... I've been involved continuously with computers since 1967 (Comp. Sci, 70) and programmed in just about every commercial language on just about every type of commercial computer AND THEY ALL SUCK. I bought a Mac in 1984 and Hypercard in 1987 AND THEY DON'T

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On 2/10/04 7:23 PM, "Dar Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> While I can't say I've pushed the engine as hard as the combined >> talent of >> this list, in my experience the engine's performance has been >> exceptional. > > I find this interesting. And frustrating. > > When the general assumpt

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Feb 10, 2004, at 8:23 PM, Dar Scott wrote: The best way to make the engine rock-solid is to knock over the idol. Are you talking concrete, or just sedimentary sandstone or volcanic pumice? I used to prefer the term "bullet proof" but I recently viewed on The Science Channel that the firing of

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 07:05 PM, Scott Rossi wrote: While I can't say I've pushed the engine as hard as the combined talent of this list, in my experience the engine's performance has been exceptional. I find this interesting. And frustrating. When the general assumption among the com

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 07:05 PM, Scott Rossi wrote: While I can't say I've pushed the engine as hard as the combined talent of this list, in my experience the engine's performance has been exceptional. I find this interesting. And frustrating. When the general assumption among the c

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

A, but which Lingo? Verbose or dot.syntax? (Which I daresay confuses people just as you suggested in your previous post). Judy On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Dan Shafer wrote: > And the new Director supports JavaScript alongside Lingo syntax. My > bet: it'll just confuse everyone. (And I love Lingo,

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

>> I think that one of the selling points of MetaCard was its reputation >> of being rock-solid. Rev should strive for the same. > > Revolution might have a larger customer base and a customer base > consisting of a broader range of customers. This might contribute to a > greater number of report

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Feb 10, 2004, at 4:37 PM, Peter T. Evensen wrote: Supporting JavaScript is an interesting idea. I probably wouldn't used it, but I wonder if it would bring others to Revolution. Authorware 7 added support for writing scripts in JavaScript instead of the Authorware scripting language. Not s

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 06:18 PM, Robert Brenstein wrote: I think that one of the selling points of MetaCard was its reputation of being rock-solid. Rev should strive for the same. Revolution might have a larger customer base and a customer base consisting of a broader range of custome

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Wednesday, February 11, 2004, at 01:14 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Supporting JavaScript is an interesting idea. I probably wouldn't used it, but I wonder if it would bring others to Revolution. And the new Director supports JavaScript alongside Lingo syntax. My bet: it'll just confuse eve

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Feb 10, 2004, at 3:37 PM, Peter T. Evensen wrote: Supporting JavaScript is an interesting idea. I probably wouldn't used it, but I wonder if it would bring others to Revolution. Authorware 7 added support for writing scripts in JavaScript instead of the Authorware scripting language. Not s

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Feb 10, 2004, at 3:37 PM, Peter T. Evensen wrote: Supporting JavaScript is an interesting idea. I probably wouldn't used it, but I wonder if it would bring others to Revolution. Authorware 7 added support for writing scripts in JavaScript instead of the Authorware scripting language. Not s

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

I've resisted comment as long as I can. It's torture. Most of my feelings have been expressed by others, but there is one point that I think is perhaps under-appreciated. The notion that we should add to the Transcript syntax to make the program less "beginnerish" (which I agree it isn't anyway

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

At 8:19 AM +0900 2/11/04, Doug Lerner wrote: What is xTalk? It's a generic term for the family of languages of which Transcript is one. The first was HyperTalk, and several of them have been of the form "somethingTalk" (SuperTalk, MetaTalk), hence "xTalk". -- jeanne a. e. devoto ~ [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Supporting JavaScript is an interesting idea. I probably wouldn't used it, but I wonder if it would bring others to Revolution. Authorware 7 added support for writing scripts in JavaScript instead of the Authorware scripting language. Not sure why they decided to do that, unless they thought

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On 2/11/04 4:19 AM, "Dar Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In my mind I am not separating xTalk from Transcript from Revolution. What is xTalk? [EMAIL PROTECTED] afraid to reveal my ignorance ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Me too! I've never really understood why we start by teaching the really confusing stuff and then offer the higher-level languages LAST (AND wonder why we have horrendous attrition rates...). It seems much more intuitive to get people to learn the general things in a visual environment with natur

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Sure, this is a perfectly valid point. Most tools have their place; some are more extensible or perhaps farther-reaching than others... I largely have no need for the power/etc. of C et al. Others likely do. I would just hate for the elegance and comprehensible nature of xTalks to be compromise

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Frank wrote > >> > This isn't an either or proposition. Adding support > for "x = 1" would have no impact on the RR IDE. It would have no impact > on your ability to use "put 1 into x" all you want. It would have no > impact on you, or anyone else using RR today.

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 10:20 AM, Frank Leahy wrote: BUT...I wish xTalk had some ADDITIONAL constructs that made it more accessible to computer scientists and professional programmers. Both because without them xTalk look amateurish, and therefore less likely to be used by profession

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Frank wrote >> This isn't an either or proposition. Adding support for "x = 1" would have no impact on the RR IDE. It would have no impact on your ability to use "put 1 into x" all you want. It would have no impact on you, or anyone else using RR today. But it would make my life easier. And

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Not supporting these standard statements make the language look a bit "beginner-ish" Frank, et al: Is there something inherently inferior about a programming environment that can be used productively by someone who doesn't have a degree in computer science? Do professional developers feel threate

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Rob Cozens a *crit : > Is there something inherently inferior about a programming > environment that can be used productively by someone who doesn't have > a degree in computer science? > > Do professional developers feel threatened by the concept of business > people writing custom software to

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Having "put" as the sole assignment syntax means, IMHO, that people looking at RR think it's more like HyperCard than less like HyperCard Frank, et al: My apologies if this is a repost. I originally sent it at 9 AM yesterday, and if it appeared on the list, I missed it: Not supporting these s

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Who wants Rev to be as user-friendly as C? I'm afraid that's impossible, Judy: one would have to-- * "dumb down" the Rev Dev UI, * completely rewrite Transcript to make the syntax as succinct as possible * "power down" the syntax so it takes half a page of code to accomplish what could previo

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

As Dar points out here, the "=" operator can easily be overloaded. The reason that C implements the "==" operator for comparisons is because C also lets you do something pretty screwy with assignments: if (c==12) is a comparison between c and 12 if (c=12) assigns 12 to c and then takes the result

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On 10/02/2004, at 14:13, Dar Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe this applies to the old single character not-equals, which I think is still allowed in Revolution. It is allowed on Mac but if you write that code it will fail when you try to distribute to Win, as I discovered. The distribution

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

>And my bet still stands -- I'm willing to bet $20 that the code to >parse "x = 1" is already in place, but commented out in the RR engine >for historical reasons. You can email me offlist to arrange payment:-) The problem with x = 1, is that it breaks a main rule in xtalk in that every statement

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

>(And BTW, if you've ever written a parser you know that >adding support for this is trivial, and it will have zero impact on >runtime performance.) Then why not support JavaScript as an additional syntax to XTalk, at least that way it will be consistant. It's not all that difficult either http://w

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 06:08 PM, Frank Leahy wrote: I said ADD support for "x = 1" as AN ALTERNATIVE to "put" -- you get to decide which you use. Rats, I'm dragging this on after Frank is trying to bow out. One of the problems with an alternative is that those reading the script do not

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On 2/10/04 10:20 AM, "Dar Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 06:08 PM, Doug Lerner wrote: > >> thatStack.thisCard.button:thisButton.hilite = true > > Most of my object names are multiple words. Would that be handled like > this? > > stack:"Blueberry

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 06:33 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Frank Leahy wrote: And my bet still stands -- I'm willing to bet $20 that the code to parse "x = 1" is already in place, but commented out in the RR engine for historical reasons. You may have just lost $20: "=" is already an operato

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

>If Transcript were to look just like C et al, what would be its >comparative advantage?? >Show of hands: Who wants Rev to be as user-friendly as C? maybe this is what they were looking for http://www.softintegration.com/ Tuviah ___ use-revolution mail

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Frank Leahy wrote: > And my bet still stands -- I'm willing to bet $20 that the code to > parse "x = 1" is already in place, but commented out in the RR engine > for historical reasons. You may have just lost $20: "=" is already an operator in Transcript (used as in Pascal, for comparison). When

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 06:08 PM, Doug Lerner wrote: thatStack.thisCard.button:thisButton.hilite = true Most of my object names are multiple words. Would that be handled like this? stack:"Blueberry Martians".card:"Surface Ambulance".button:"Simulate Roll".hilite = true Could

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Judy Perry wrote: > As I've spent a good chunk of time reading some of these, it would seem > that novice programmers try to 'memorize' indeed, but lack comprehension > as traditional programming languages involve using the 'black box' model > of a computer, whereas scripting languages, code reuse

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On 2/10/04 9:52 AM, "Dar Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 05:43 PM, Doug Lerner wrote: > >> thisStudent.age + thatStudent.age > > thisStudent["age"] + thatStudent["age"] > > ...is admittedly 6 characters over yours. Yes, associative arrays are essentia

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 12:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Frank Leahy wrote: Disagreeing right back at you. If you want professionals to use Rev, then you need standard assignment statement syntax -- without them Revolution looks like a hobbyist language rather th

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Frank Leahy wrote: > > Disagreeing right back at you. If you want professionals to use Rev, > then you need standard assignment statement syntax -- without them > Revolution looks like a hobbyist language rather than a real working > language ("oh, it's just HyperTalk, and we

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 03:34 AM, Frank Leahy wrote: I think you're confusing the language (xTalk), with the development and runtime environment (call it HyperCard++ for the moment). HyperCard++ is a Rapid Application Development environment that uses the concepts of stacks, cards and

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (was Andy's comments and positioning...)

I once heard that AppleScript was localizable into other languages -- French, I think. I even heard that they produced, but never released, a "C" dialect of AppleScript to make the "serious" programmers happy. ;-) regards, Geoff Canyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Feb 8, 2004, at 3:09 PM, Stephen Quinn

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

I like xObject as a name. Sort of an 'xTalk' based upon object models for RAD. I only think of stack, card and controls as objects anyway. I don't even 'get' the metaphor anymore. Of course, I don't 'get' the stage, players either. I mean deep in my mind when I am planning a new project I don't

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

I english orientation language of RunRev love. Jim ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Doug Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that's what started the thread. Not all developers around the world > think in English-like terms. :) You are wrong. In spite of my sig, when I am scripting I think directly in pig-english ;-) In fact, I am almost speaking in my head while typing

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Doug Lerner a *crit : > On 2/9/04 4:31 PM, "Thomas McGrath III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > With REV I 'think' about what I want in english > > like terms and then start typing. > > I think that's what started the thread. Not all developers around the world > think in English-like terms. :

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Le 9 févr. 04, à 08:34, Doug Lerner a écrit : On 2/9/04 4:31 PM, "Thomas McGrath III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: With REV I 'think' about what I want in english like terms and then start typing. I think that's what started the thread. Not all developers around the world think in English-like t

RE: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 07:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank, If you want dot notation and equals signs, why wouldn't you just use C, or VB or Java or any ohter authoring language which has those? That's what *they do*. At some point, adding same syntax ends up creating same functio

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (was Andy'scomments and positioning...)

Kjetil Rå Hauge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Applescript already has French No more. And it's *good* ;-) The french version ws plagued with a number of bugs... It was funny to play "Babelfish" with it (fr > en > fr) ;-))) As a french speaker, I am *not* disturbed by having to write scripts i

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On 2/9/04 4:31 PM, "Thomas McGrath III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With REV I 'think' about what I want in english > like terms and then start typing. I think that's what started the thread. Not all developers around the world think in English-like terms. :) doug ___

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

I agree with you Chipp. I turned down a job doing a Director project and instead talked them into doing it in REV because I KNEW I could get it done quicker and in the short time frame they needed. Now D does have its points but XTalk just works better for these type of projects for me. I can T

RE: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

Frank, If you want dot notation and equals signs, why wouldn't you just use C, or VB or Java or any ohter authoring language which has those? That's what *they do*. At some point, adding same syntax ends up creating same functionality. The fact is that the X-talks *are not like those other langua

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

on soapbox On Sunday, February 8, 2004, at 07:29 PM, Frank Leahy wrote: >Removing exceptions can simplify xTalk and enhance its power. You mean try/catch/end try? It might simplify things, but it sure won't enhance anybody's power. There are numerous places that common functions can fail in

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 01:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course with Transcript, the = operator means the same thing that the == operator means in other languages. That probably can't be changed anymore or everything wouldn't be backwards compatible. So some other kind of assignme

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (wasAndy'scomments and positioning...)

On 2/9/04 9:07 AM, "Dar Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 8, 2004, at 04:07 PM, Doug Lerner wrote: > >> It would be nice to also support a JavaScript-like: >> >> b.a = c > > What could be a concrete example? > > (field "Potatoes Required").textHeight = 20 > > Or like

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (was Andy'scomments and positioning...)

On Sunday, February 8, 2004, at 04:07 PM, Doug Lerner wrote: It would be nice to also support a JavaScript-like: b.a = c What could be a concrete example? (field "Potatoes Required").textHeight = 20 Or like this? field("Potatoes Required).textHeight = 20 Just wondering. (this stack).textHeig

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (was Andy'scomments and positioning...)

On 2/9/04 8:02 AM, "Dar Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I was wonder that myself. If you were going to write for, say, Japanese users, instead of set the a of b to c you would say b no a wo c ni settei The grammar is practically opposite. It would be nice to also support a JavaScript-like: b

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (was Andy's comments and positioning...)

I imagine it would be a nightmare to 'localize' the syntax to French, Germanand prone to more bugs... it's human nature... Though I like the syntax for my own use and for teaching "junior associates" (it does help), I think the English orientation might be somewhat of a weakness in an glob

Re: Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (was Andy'scomments and positioning...)

On 2/9/04 8:02 AM, "Dar Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 8, 2004, at 04:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> - for non-english-speaking students, today, the "javascript" syntax = >> the "flash" syntax = the "." syntax = the "ECMA" syntax = "the >> standard syntax for pro

Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (was Andy's comments and positioning...)

On Sunday, February 8, 2004, at 04:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - for non-english-speaking students, today, the "javascript" syntax = the "flash" syntax = the "." syntax = the "ECMA" syntax = "the standard syntax for programming" = is not more difficult than the xtalk syntax. It is the same