Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Jonathan Lynch]

I love transcript.

It works the way I think.

A script like:

put "Don't screw up Transcript" into field "What RunRev Should Do" is just
very easy to conceive.



With transcript like it is, I spend my mental energy thinking about how my
program is going to work and interface, not translating my natural thoughts
into statements like:

 
.this.that.thatotherthing.IsThisParticularDotSupposedToBeAMethodOrAnObject.ShootMeNow


So, I vote for keeping transcript verbose and easy.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Dan Shafer]

I don't disagree, Jonathan, but if you apply that logic to
object-orientation you find yourself in a syntax soup that is
difficult to resolve and leads to huge slowdowns in performance.

So if you vote to keep the language simple, you're voting to keep it
non-object-oriented. I'm OK with that but I vastly prefer that we take
an OO fork at this point.

On 2/24/06, Jonathan Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I love transcript.
>
> It works the way I think.
>
> A script like:
>
> put "Don't screw up Transcript" into field "What RunRev Should Do" is just
> very easy to conceive.
>
>
>
> With transcript like it is, I spend my mental energy thinking about how my
> program is going to work and interface, not translating my natural thoughts
> into statements like:
>
>  
> .this.that.thatotherthing.IsThisParticularDotSupposedToBeAMethodOrAnObject.ShootMeNow
>
>
> So, I vote for keeping transcript verbose and easy.
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>


--
~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Richard Gaskin]

Dan Shafer wrote:

I don't disagree, Jonathan, but if you apply that logic to
object-orientation you find yourself in a syntax soup that is
difficult to resolve and leads to huge slowdowns in performance.

So if you vote to keep the language simple, you're voting to keep it
non-object-oriented. I'm OK with that but I vastly prefer that we take
an OO fork at this point.


Agreed.  While there's been no public commitment on this topic from the 
mother ship, what hints we've been given suggest that the implementation 
would include OOP capabilities as OPTIONS for the scripter.


Nearly every discussion about this has been in terms of OPTIONS, so I'm 
not sure why there's this perception that new OPTIONS will be forced on 
people who choose not to use them.


To use a current example, regex is an OPTION.  If you don't like it you 
can parse strings using more verbose syntax.


As for dot-notation, I find the strongest resistance come from those who 
don't use languages in which it's supported.  This isn't to suggest that 
it's superior for all uses (nor is even OOP *always* superior to 
anything else; everything has trade-offs), but if we see OOP extensions 
to the language it would, as you note, make it unusually difficult to 
write and even more difficult to learn if it didn't use at least a few 
common OOP conventions.


Not everything that isn't Transcript is always wrong.  Sometimes there's 
a lot to learn from alternatives


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Jim Ault]

On 2/24/06 12:14 PM, "Dan Shafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> .this.that.thatotherthing.IsThisParticularDotSupposedToBeAMethodOrAnObject.Sh
>> ootMeNow 

My vote would be that the option to use dot notation would be quite welcome.
I, too, use programs that become much simpler and functional that way.

Of course, those who build simple, effective projects don't collide with
template objects, constructors, inheritance vs verbose function calls, etc.

One real-world object-oriented database we all use is the driver's license
database.  We all carry our own, it has unique data, and each is responsible
for maintaining it.  We are the object that owns the object.  The license
expires periodically, and definitely expires when we do.

Another object is the parking valet, whose knowledge and skills allows him
to deal with any vehicle, automatic or manual transmission, large or small,
rain or shine.  Once programmed, an object can be very powerful.

Jim Ault
Las Vegas


On 2/24/06 12:14 PM, "Dan Shafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I don't disagree, Jonathan, but if you apply that logic to
> object-orientation you find yourself in a syntax soup that is
> difficult to resolve and leads to huge slowdowns in performance.
> 
> So if you vote to keep the language simple, you're voting to keep it
> non-object-oriented. I'm OK with that but I vastly prefer that we take
> an OO fork at this point.
> 
> On 2/24/06, Jonathan Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I love transcript.
>> 
>> It works the way I think.
>> 
>> A script like:
>> 
>> put "Don't screw up Transcript" into field "What RunRev Should Do" is just
>> very easy to conceive.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> With transcript like it is, I spend my mental energy thinking about how my
>> program is going to work and interface, not translating my natural thoughts
>> into statements like:
>> 
>>  
>> .this.that.thatotherthing.IsThisParticularDotSupposedToBeAMethodOrAnObject.Sh
>> ootMeNow
>> 
>> 
>> So, I vote for keeping transcript verbose and easy.
>> ___
>> use-revolution mailing list
>> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>> 
> 
> 
> --
> ~~
> Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
> http://www.shafermedia.com
> Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>> From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Judy Perry]

What possible competitive advantage does it offer to the company for it to
transform Transcript into yet another bit player in a very major league?

With it being an x-Talk, it offers certain advantages, such as ease of
learning/reading, that are all but nonexistant in your "traditional"
programming languages.  As such, it is a big player in a small league, but
it's almost completely a league of its own, a league that the company has
reported it finds profitable.

If, as we've often discussed, Rev is unable to compete with
C++/Java/dot.notation.flavor.of.the.month because of its very different
paradigm, how would making it over into just another minor OO language
make it more competitive?

I've said it before and will say it again:  If true OO is what you really
want, why not just use one of the bazillion OO languages?  Once Lingo went
down that route, it ceased to be a learnable language for ordinary humans.

And, as for OO being OPTIONAL in Rev, remember that it was optional in
Lingo, too.  Only, every single Lingo book on the market dealt in
dot.speak, not verbose speak.  Code fragments that floated about for
public consumption tended to be dot.speak, not verbose speak.

Remember the guy who not long ago wrote to the list who had problems
possibly with case statements and pWhiches?  What's going to happen when
those new users have a problem and everybody responds in dot.speak?

OPTIONAL dot.speak I fear will end Transcript's natural-language
orientation.

Judy

> >> .this.that.thatotherthing.IsThisParticularDotSupposedToBeAMethodOrAnObject.Sh
> >> ootMeNow

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Peter T. Evensen]

At 02:02 PM 2/24/2006, you wrote:

I am an object-oriented programmer by training and disposition. Every
single object oriented programming language that I've used (and I have
admittedly not used them all) with the single exception of Smalltalk
(which I actually think got it right) uses dot notation.


Smalltalk got it right and didn't use dot-notation?  It's been a while 
since I've looked at Smalltalk; what did it do?  Would it's syntax be 
appropriate for Transcript?


Peter T. Evensen
http://www.PetersRoadToHealth.com
314-629-5248 or 888-628-4588 


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Peter T. Evensen]

At 03:14 PM 2/24/2006, you wrote:

I've said it before and will say it again:  If true OO is what you really
want, why not just use one of the bazillion OO languages?  Once Lingo went
down that route, it ceased to be a learnable language for ordinary humans.


I think there are two issues here, or two competing goals:  make Rev a tool 
for the masses (Dan's "Inventive User") and make Rev a more powerful 
development tool (for the programmer/professional).


As a professional developer, I would welcome more object-oriented 
facilities in Rev, but that can come at the price of making Rev less simple 
(but it doesn't have to).


My goal is to get things done quickly and easily.  Revolution allows me to 
do that now.  Adding OOP would probably make me more productive.


I could use one of the bazillion OO language, but I would not as productive 
because I have to spend more time coding the things the Rev engine does for 
me.  Some of my solutions, however, might be cleaner and more elegant 
because of the object-oriented nature of the program.  I could more closely 
tie code and data together into objects and not have to worry about 
unintended interactions.


It seems that Rev is walking a fine line in trying to address these two 
markets.  I think they are doing a good job.


Peter T. Evensen
http://www.PetersRoadToHealth.com
314-629-5248 or 888-628-4588 


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Richard Gaskin]

Judy Perry wrote:

OPTIONAL dot.speak I fear will end Transcript's natural-language
orientation.


Regex isn't exactly "natural", but those that use it like that it's 
included as an OPTION.


I don't recall anyone saying that RunRev was going to force users to 
replace years of legacy code with dot notation, any more than they 
forced folks to stop parsing strings with chunk expressions when they 
added regex support.


OPTIONS mean choice.  Only you are in control of the choices you make.

You can choose to use regex and then complain about having made that 
choice, but no one from RunRev is making that choice for you.


This is so very non-controversial I'm surprised it comes up again and 
again as such


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 ___
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.FourthWorld.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Thomas McGrath III]

No not this again

Why does he keep bringing this up?


Just poking fun,

Tom

I can read dot but have never really 'liked' it.

On Feb 24, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Dan Shafer wrote:


I seem to have a knack for starting discussion threads that are
probably just close enough to being on topic to avoid their immediate
crushing by Listmom Heather and yet generate significant amounts of
message traffic for which some people here probably wish I would just
shut up or go away. Preferably both.

But Judy Perry, in the thread about Bugzilla that I started yesterday,
said something that I thought ought to spawn a new thread, so here it
is.

She said, "Lingo went to c.dot.syntax.hell in a very short fashion...
Please don't
let Transcript follow behind Lingo!"

I am an object-oriented programmer by training and disposition. Every
single object oriented programming language that I've used (and I have
admittedly not used them all) with the single exception of Smalltalk
(which I actually think got it right) uses dot notation. Java.
JavaScript. Lingo. Ruby. Python. All of them. It is an accepted
convention in OO languages where it is essential to identify methods
and attributes with object namespaces.

So if Transcript does go object-oriented -- and I hope and believe it
will, though it may be an alternative fork rather than a forced switch
-- I hope it *does* in fact adopt dot notation so that all of us who
have trained our brains to think in those terms when we create and
program with objects will e comfortable doing so.

FWIW.
--
~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"

From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


Thomas J McGrath III
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Lazy River Software™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com

Lazy River Metal Art™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com/metal.html

Meeting Wear™ - http://www.cafepress.com/meetingwear

Semantic Compaction Systems - http://www.minspeak.com

SCIconics, LLC - http://www.sciconics.com/sciindex.html







___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Peter T. Evensen]

At 03:27 PM 2/24/2006, you wrote:
This is so very non-controversial I'm surprised it comes up again and 
again as such


If it keeps causing controversy, isn't it by definition 
controversial?  ;)  (I just couldn't resist)



Peter T. Evensen
http://www.PetersRoadToHealth.com
314-629-5248 or 888-628-4588 


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Andre Garzia]

Folks,

taking the risk of sounding naive, why can't we deal with objects the  
way we deal with custom props?


for example imagine the following Traffic Light  object with  
properties and methods:


TrafficLight.stopColor --- Red
TrafficLight.attentionColor --- Yellow
TrafficLight.goColor--- Green!
TrafficLight.interval --- the interval for the cycle  
of yellow to red, for example 10 secs.
TrafficLight.cycleInterval--- the period the traffic light  
stays green or red before cycling, for example 45 secs.


Methods:

TrafficLight.go  -- Starts with go.
TrafficLight.stop -- Go to stop

So why can't we do transcript-ish things like:

set the stopColor of TrafficLight to red

set the interval of TrafficLight to 20 secs

and call methods like

send "go" to traffic light...

This would still be verbose enough to fell like transcript and maybe  
it could address the problem of transforming transcript into a weird  
lingo like language. Although I think that the parser for those  
things would be a little hard...


anyway, Mark should have better thoughts than me on this...



On Feb 24, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Judy Perry wrote:

What possible competitive advantage does it offer to the company  
for it to
transform Transcript into yet another bit player in a very major  
league?


With it being an x-Talk, it offers certain advantages, such as ease of
learning/reading, that are all but nonexistant in your "traditional"
programming languages.  As such, it is a big player in a small  
league, but
it's almost completely a league of its own, a league that the  
company has

reported it finds profitable.

If, as we've often discussed, Rev is unable to compete with
C++/Java/dot.notation.flavor.of.the.month because of its very  
different

paradigm, how would making it over into just another minor OO language
make it more competitive?

I've said it before and will say it again:  If true OO is what you  
really
want, why not just use one of the bazillion OO languages?  Once  
Lingo went
down that route, it ceased to be a learnable language for ordinary  
humans.


And, as for OO being OPTIONAL in Rev, remember that it was optional in
Lingo, too.  Only, every single Lingo book on the market dealt in
dot.speak, not verbose speak.  Code fragments that floated about for
public consumption tended to be dot.speak, not verbose speak.

Remember the guy who not long ago wrote to the list who had problems
possibly with case statements and pWhiches?  What's going to happen  
when

those new users have a problem and everybody responds in dot.speak?

OPTIONAL dot.speak I fear will end Transcript's natural-language
orientation.

Judy

.this.that.thatotherthing.IsThisParticularDotSupposedToBeAMethodOrA 
nObject.Sh

ootMeNow


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Phil Davis]

Hey, Andre, I like this!
Phil Davis


Andre Garzia wrote:

Folks,

taking the risk of sounding naive, why can't we deal with objects the  
way we deal with custom props?


for example imagine the following Traffic Light  object with  properties 
and methods:


TrafficLight.stopColor --- Red
TrafficLight.attentionColor --- Yellow
TrafficLight.goColor--- Green!
TrafficLight.interval --- the interval for the cycle  of 
yellow to red, for example 10 secs.
TrafficLight.cycleInterval--- the period the traffic light  
stays green or red before cycling, for example 45 secs.


Methods:

TrafficLight.go  -- Starts with go.
TrafficLight.stop -- Go to stop

So why can't we do transcript-ish things like:

set the stopColor of TrafficLight to red

set the interval of TrafficLight to 20 secs

and call methods like

send "go" to traffic light...

This would still be verbose enough to fell like transcript and maybe  it 
could address the problem of transforming transcript into a weird  lingo 
like language. Although I think that the parser for those  things would 
be a little hard...


anyway, Mark should have better thoughts than me on this...



On Feb 24, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Judy Perry wrote:

What possible competitive advantage does it offer to the company  for 
it to

transform Transcript into yet another bit player in a very major  league?

With it being an x-Talk, it offers certain advantages, such as ease of
learning/reading, that are all but nonexistant in your "traditional"
programming languages.  As such, it is a big player in a small  
league, but
it's almost completely a league of its own, a league that the  company 
has

reported it finds profitable.

If, as we've often discussed, Rev is unable to compete with
C++/Java/dot.notation.flavor.of.the.month because of its very  different
paradigm, how would making it over into just another minor OO language
make it more competitive?

I've said it before and will say it again:  If true OO is what you  
really
want, why not just use one of the bazillion OO languages?  Once  Lingo 
went
down that route, it ceased to be a learnable language for ordinary  
humans.


And, as for OO being OPTIONAL in Rev, remember that it was optional in
Lingo, too.  Only, every single Lingo book on the market dealt in
dot.speak, not verbose speak.  Code fragments that floated about for
public consumption tended to be dot.speak, not verbose speak.

Remember the guy who not long ago wrote to the list who had problems
possibly with case statements and pWhiches?  What's going to happen  when
those new users have a problem and everybody responds in dot.speak?

OPTIONAL dot.speak I fear will end Transcript's natural-language
orientation.

Judy

.this.that.thatotherthing.IsThisParticularDotSupposedToBeAMethodOrA 
nObject.Sh

ootMeNow



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Peter T. Evensen]

At 03:58 PM 2/24/2006, Andre Garzia wrote:

So why can't we do transcript-ish things like:

set the stopColor of TrafficLight to red

set the interval of TrafficLight to 20 secs


Would there be any reason to distinguish between custom properties and a 
object property?  If not, I see the above working.



and call methods like

send "go" to traffic light...


That works for methods, but how about functions?

I have never liked the current transcript syntax of 
Value("GetCurrentColor()", TrafficLight).TrafficLight.GetColor() is 
much more readable, in my opinion.


Peter T. Evensen
http://www.PetersRoadToHealth.com
314-629-5248 or 888-628-4588 


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[J. Landman Gay]

Thomas McGrath III wrote:

No not this again

Why does he keep bringing this up?


Got me. I thought we'd already finished this conversation several times. 
I don't see the point of hashing it out all over again.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Jonathan Lynch]

This is exactly the way transcript works now, except that it would allow you
to create custom objects.

But that raises a whole new issue...

How would you define a custom object?


Right now, I use groups to create custom objects, like specialized tables
and the like.

But, say we wanted to define a custom object that was not a group, like a
telephone object that behaves in a certain way.  How would you use
transcript to define the parameters of that object?

One thought is that they could create some sort of blank object, with, like
all possible properties that one could think of, that could be set from the
property inspector - like a universal object.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Thomas McGrath III]

You mean like an object template?

Tom

On Feb 24, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Jonathan Lynch wrote:

One thought is that they could create some sort of blank object,  
with, like
all possible properties that one could think of, that could be set  
from the

property inspector - like a universal object.


Thomas J McGrath III
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Lazy River Software™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com

Lazy River Metal Art™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com/metal.html

Meeting Wear™ - http://www.cafepress.com/meetingwear

Semantic Compaction Systems - http://www.minspeak.com

SCIconics, LLC - http://www.sciconics.com/sciindex.html







___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Scott Kane]

> Richard Gaskin
> Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2006 8:27 AM
> To: How to use Revolution
> Subject: Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

> This is so very non-controversial I'm surprised it comes up again and 
> again as such

Agreed.  It'd also be a major attraction, as an option,
for developers coming from main stream OOP environments.

Scott


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Dan Shafer]

In Smalltalk, the basic principle was the use of words parsed left to
right for readability, right to left for precedence of operation.
Parameters were embedded in method calls separated with colons. So,
for example, to create a new instance of a Person object, you would
write something like:

newPerson -> Person new

Then to initialize that new object, you'd write

newPerson initialize

Let's say the initialize method needed a name and an age for the
initialization process. You might define a method called initialize
withName:withAge: In a method call, it would look like this:

newPerson initialize withName: 'Dan' withAge: 39.

In JavaScript, e.g., that might look like this:

newPerson.initialize('Dan',9);



On 2/24/06, Peter T. Evensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 02:02 PM 2/24/2006, you wrote:
> >I am an object-oriented programmer by training and disposition. Every
> >single object oriented programming language that I've used (and I have
> >admittedly not used them all) with the single exception of Smalltalk
> >(which I actually think got it right) uses dot notation.
>
> Smalltalk got it right and didn't use dot-notation?  It's been a while
> since I've looked at Smalltalk; what did it do?  Would it's syntax be
> appropriate for Transcript?
>
> Peter T. Evensen
> http://www.PetersRoadToHealth.com
> 314-629-5248 or 888-628-4588
>
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>


--
~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Dan Shafer]

Andre..

While you're not exactly wrong here, you do miss the central
point/issue. To use your example, if I'm designing a traffic system
with lots of TrafficLight objects, I need a way to create individual
instances of that object, give them identifiers, and send messages
either to the individual instances or to the class. Doing this without
some sort of notation that makes the relationships between objects
(receivers) and methods (messages sent to those receivers) is
cumbersome at best.

I don't think your suggested notation is necessarily bad and in fact
it won't surprise me if that syntax is acceptable in an OO Transcript,
*once the object instance has been created and identified*.

The other big advantage of dot notation is that it can be held as an
alternative that nobody is required to use if they don't want to use
OO in their apps. Nothing forces it. But, having said that, I'm not
sure it is possible to create a hybrid development environment in
which OO dot notation and textual freestyle exist side by side without
introducing tremendous inefficiency into the byte-code interpreter or
other mechanism for executing the application. And that is ultimately
Mark W's biggest challenge, I suspect.

On 2/24/06, Andre Garzia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> taking the risk of sounding naive, why can't we deal with objects the
> way we deal with custom props?
>
> for example imagine the following Traffic Light  object with
> properties and methods:
>
> TrafficLight.stopColor --- Red
> TrafficLight.attentionColor --- Yellow
> TrafficLight.goColor--- Green!
> TrafficLight.interval --- the interval for the cycle
> of yellow to red, for example 10 secs.
> TrafficLight.cycleInterval--- the period the traffic light
> stays green or red before cycling, for example 45 secs.
>
> Methods:
>
> TrafficLight.go  -- Starts with go.
> TrafficLight.stop -- Go to stop
>
> So why can't we do transcript-ish things like:
>
> set the stopColor of TrafficLight to red
>
> set the interval of TrafficLight to 20 secs
>
> and call methods like
>
> send "go" to traffic light...
>
> This would still be verbose enough to fell like transcript and maybe
> it could address the problem of transforming transcript into a weird
> lingo like language. Although I think that the parser for those
> things would be a little hard...
>
> anyway, Mark should have better thoughts than me on this...
>
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Judy Perry wrote:
>
> > What possible competitive advantage does it offer to the company
> > for it to
> > transform Transcript into yet another bit player in a very major
> > league?
> >
> > With it being an x-Talk, it offers certain advantages, such as ease of
> > learning/reading, that are all but nonexistant in your "traditional"
> > programming languages.  As such, it is a big player in a small
> > league, but
> > it's almost completely a league of its own, a league that the
> > company has
> > reported it finds profitable.
> >
> > If, as we've often discussed, Rev is unable to compete with
> > C++/Java/dot.notation.flavor.of.the.month because of its very
> > different
> > paradigm, how would making it over into just another minor OO language
> > make it more competitive?
> >
> > I've said it before and will say it again:  If true OO is what you
> > really
> > want, why not just use one of the bazillion OO languages?  Once
> > Lingo went
> > down that route, it ceased to be a learnable language for ordinary
> > humans.
> >
> > And, as for OO being OPTIONAL in Rev, remember that it was optional in
> > Lingo, too.  Only, every single Lingo book on the market dealt in
> > dot.speak, not verbose speak.  Code fragments that floated about for
> > public consumption tended to be dot.speak, not verbose speak.
> >
> > Remember the guy who not long ago wrote to the list who had problems
> > possibly with case statements and pWhiches?  What's going to happen
> > when
> > those new users have a problem and everybody responds in dot.speak?
> >
> > OPTIONAL dot.speak I fear will end Transcript's natural-language
> > orientation.
> >
> > Judy
> >
>  .this.that.thatotherthing.IsThisParticularDotSupposedToBeAMethodOrA
>  nObject.Sh
>  ootMeNow
> >
> > ___
> > use-revolution mailing list
> > use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> > subscription preferences:
> > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>


--
~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at th

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Dan Shafer]

I don't recall this being hashed out and finished several times,
Jacque. Maybe it's been resolved to YOUR satisfaction, but someone
else raised the issue in another thread, so evidently at least some of
us don't think the issue's been resolved.

Except of course this is all hypothetical BS because none of us gets
to decide how RR implements this.

And you have to admit it's more fun than 2.7 bashing. :-)

On 2/24/06, J. Landman Gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas McGrath III wrote:
> > No not this again
> >
> > Why does he keep bringing this up?
>
> Got me. I thought we'd already finished this conversation several times.
> I don't see the point of hashing it out all over again.
>
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>


--
~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Dan Shafer]

Just for the record, I didn't bring this up again. Judy Perry did. I
just moved the discussion to a new thread and offered my opinion.


On 2/24/06, Thomas McGrath III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No not this again
>
> Why does he keep bringing this up?
>
>
> Just poking fun,
>
> Tom
>
> I can read dot but have never really 'liked' it.
>
> On Feb 24, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Dan Shafer wrote:
>
> > I seem to have a knack for starting discussion threads that are
> > probably just close enough to being on topic to avoid their immediate
> > crushing by Listmom Heather and yet generate significant amounts of
> > message traffic for which some people here probably wish I would just
> > shut up or go away. Preferably both.
> >
> > But Judy Perry, in the thread about Bugzilla that I started yesterday,
> > said something that I thought ought to spawn a new thread, so here it
> > is.
> >
> > She said, "Lingo went to c.dot.syntax.hell in a very short fashion...
> > Please don't
> > let Transcript follow behind Lingo!"
> >
> > I am an object-oriented programmer by training and disposition. Every
> > single object oriented programming language that I've used (and I have
> > admittedly not used them all) with the single exception of Smalltalk
> > (which I actually think got it right) uses dot notation. Java.
> > JavaScript. Lingo. Ruby. Python. All of them. It is an accepted
> > convention in OO languages where it is essential to identify methods
> > and attributes with object namespaces.
> >
> > So if Transcript does go object-oriented -- and I hope and believe it
> > will, though it may be an alternative fork rather than a forced switch
> > -- I hope it *does* in fact adopt dot notation so that all of us who
> > have trained our brains to think in those terms when we create and
> > program with objects will e comfortable doing so.
> >
> > FWIW.
> > --
> > ~~
> > Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
> > http://www.shafermedia.com
> > Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
> >> From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
> > ___
> > use-revolution mailing list
> > use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> > subscription preferences:
> > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>
> Thomas J McGrath III
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Lazy River Software™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com
>
> Lazy River Metal Art™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com/metal.html
>
> Meeting Wear™ - http://www.cafepress.com/meetingwear
>
> Semantic Compaction Systems - http://www.minspeak.com
>
> SCIconics, LLC - http://www.sciconics.com/sciindex.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>


--
~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Mark Smith]

Well maybe one could 'see' an objects functions as properties, like   
in Eiffel, or at least in my dim understanding of it.

get the sqrt(9) of mathsObject

Mark

On 24 Feb 2006, at 22:25, Peter T. Evensen wrote:


At 03:58 PM 2/24/2006, Andre Garzia wrote:

So why can't we do transcript-ish things like:

set the stopColor of TrafficLight to red

set the interval of TrafficLight to 20 secs


Would there be any reason to distinguish between custom properties  
and a object property?  If not, I see the above working.



and call methods like

send "go" to traffic light...


That works for methods, but how about functions?

I have never liked the current transcript syntax of Value 
("GetCurrentColor()", TrafficLight).TrafficLight.GetColor() is  
much more readable, in my opinion.


Peter T. Evensen
http://www.PetersRoadToHealth.com
314-629-5248 or 888-628-4588
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[J. Landman Gay]

Dan Shafer wrote:

I don't recall this being hashed out and finished several times,
Jacque.


Seems to be an annual event. I see two threads in the archives, February 
of 2004 and another in August 2005, and now this one. That doesn't seem 
like enough to me, I'm pretty sure there were a couple more but maybe 
they were on one of the other xtalk lists.


> Maybe it's been resolved to YOUR satisfaction,

If I remember right, it never gets resolved. It's like gun control and 
abortion.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[James Spencer]

On Feb 24, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Dan Shafer wrote:


I am an object-oriented programmer by training and disposition. Every
single object oriented programming language that I've used (and I have
admittedly not used them all) with the single exception of Smalltalk
(which I actually think got it right) uses dot notation. Java.
JavaScript. Lingo. Ruby. Python. All of them. It is an accepted
convention in OO languages where it is essential to identify methods
and attributes with object namespaces.


I'll let the rest of you hash this out but just to point out the  
other obvious exception to the implication that dot notation is  
somehow essentially ubiquitous in the OO world, I would point out  
that, ironically (because it is the primary language for the Mac at  
the moment), Objective C (which has some obvious Smalltalk influence)  
does not use dot notation for accessing instance variables.


James P. Spencer
Rochester, MN

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"Badges??  We don't need no stinkin badges!"

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Dan Shafer]

On 2/24/06, James Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Objective C (which has some obvious Smalltalk influence)
>does not use dot notation for accessing instance variables.--

Absolutely right. Objective-C is s much cleaner than C++. I
mourned the latter's victory over the former when the battle for an OO
version of C was still current.

~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Judy Perry]

1.  It being "optional" didn't stop it from destroying accessibility to
verbose Lingo in Director.  Latecomers to Director didn't have any other
learning "options" or "choices" than dot.speak.

2.  Optional isn't the same as transparent.  I'd be less leery if I could
look in a crystal ball and see that it was implemented in a transparent
fashion.

3.  It's a slippery slope.  Once it heads down that path, there will be
little reason to implement new functionalities in Rev taking care to do it
in a natural-language fashion.

This is why it's controversial.  At least to me it is.

Judy

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Richard Gaskin wrote:

> OPTIONS mean choice.  Only you are in control of the choices you make.
>
> You can choose to use regex and then complain about having made that
> choice, but no one from RunRev is making that choice for you.
>
> This is so very non-controversial I'm surprised it comes up again and
> again as such

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Alex Tweedly]

Judy Perry wrote:


1.  It being "optional" didn't stop it from destroying accessibility to
verbose Lingo in Director.  Latecomers to Director didn't have any other
learning "options" or "choices" than dot.speak.

 

Yes, I think that's a danger, especially if a large part of the audience 
for books (and tutorials, etc.) is going to be converts from other 
languages, who might find the dot notation more comfortable and easier 
than "natural" language style.



2.  Optional isn't the same as transparent.  I'd be less leery if I could
look in a crystal ball and see that it was implemented in a transparent
fashion.

 

Well, we know that allowing a mix is going to be hard for RR. So why not 
make it harder :-)


It wold be nice if there were a perf switch in the IDE: click 
"dot-style" and your scripts appear in dot-notation style, click 
"natural language" and your scripts are converted to traditional 
Transcript style; so the same statement appears as either

   set the stopColor of TrafficLight to red
or
  set the TrafficLight.stopColour to red
(or even put red into TrafficLight.stopColour)

[btw - note how it corrects your spelling at the same time :-) ]


3.  It's a slippery slope.  Once it heads down that path, there will be
little reason to implement new functionalities in Rev taking care to do it
in a natural-language fashion.

 


Again that's a danger, which the community would have some role in averting.

But remember there are benefits to dot-notations style. There are the 
intellectual advantages that make OO a good approach, but I'm the wrong 
one to argue for them. What *I* like about dot-notation is how it allows 
the IDE to make it easier to use for casual, or inexpert, users.


I like the fact that in my other-language IDE, I can do something like type
 status = smtplib.  and then wait for 2 seconds

The IDE looks up the list of all properties and functions available 
within the smtp library, and displays a pop-up box showing them. I can 
scroll through that to see what all ones are available, hit CR to select 
the current on (or type the first few chars and it auto-scrolls there), 
etc. If I select one, e.g. type 'rf' to select the rfc822 
sub-library, I get
  status = smtplib.rfc822  

and again when I type a dot and pause for 2 seconds, I get a list of all 
the possible completions.


Then if I type Add it selects the first matching function, so my 
display now shows

  status = smtplib.rfc822.AddressList

and if I type the open paren, I see parameters needed by that function, 
and the documentation describing them.



I don't know for sure that it would be *impossible* to do that in a 
Transcript IDE - but it seems like it would be much much harder than it 
is in a dot-notation language. And it makes using an unfamiliar library 
so much easier than hoping between a script editor and one (or more) 
documentation windows.


--
Alex Tweedly   http://www.tweedly.net



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/2006

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Rob Cozens]

Hi all--except Mr. X :{(


So if Transcript does go object-oriented -- and I hope and believe it
will, though it may be an alternative fork rather than a forced switch
-- I hope it *does* in fact adopt dot notation so that all of us who
have trained our brains to think in those terms when we create and
program with objects will e comfortable doing so.




We have had other conversations along this line, and the thing I find 
most interesting is that some of the people who readily extoll the 
virtues of Xtalk syntax also take the lead in suggesting that RRLtd use 
existing syntax from some other language to implement new features.


Dan wants dot notation, Richard has proposed Visual Basic syntax, some 
want C notation, etc.


I want Xtalk syntax.  I want my Transcript scripts to read like a 
novel; not a mathematical formula.  And I believe it is possible.


Did Winkler & Atkinson grab pieces of this syntax and that syntax from 
other platforms when they created HyperTalk?  My answer: "no, they 
created a logically integrated syntax that performed most of the same 
functions as FORTRAN, Basic, Pascal, C, etc. in a more readable and 
efficient syntax".


Suppose someone reviewed all existing programming languages, determined 
which has the "best" syntax for each operation, and created a language 
that combined them.  Would the result be the world's most efficient 
language or an illogical nightmare?


Additionally, simply incorporating existing syntax from another 
language dooms Transcript to "same-old, same-old" status and foregoes 
an opportunity to make it different & better than the competition.  I 
think Dan & Richard are among the best and brightest among us, and if 
they were motivated they (and the rest of us) could integrate the 
features they desire into an Xtalk syntax that fits logically into 
Transcript.


Sure it's harder than lobbying RRLtd to adopt a syntax one already 
knows; but the results, IMFO, are worth the extra effort.


Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company

"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."

from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Mark Smith]

I agree. Any extension to transcript should surely be as natural to  
it as possible. Adopting non-xTalk-like syntax wholesale from other  
languages would make any real OO stuff more like using applescript or  
VBScript in Rev, which is fine and useful, but would tend to be  
attractive only to those who already know their stuff, while those  
who don't would most likely ignore the possible benefits available.


Of course, any OO extension to Transcript is going to involve us in  
some kind of learning curve (like the one for those of us coming from  
Hypercard and trying to figure out custom properties), but a  
transcript-like syntax will surely make the curve less steep, and  
therefore taken on by more people.


As Dan points out with the example of SmallTalk, dot notation is not  
necessarily the only or best way to do OOP, however many other  
languages use it. I can remember some thread on the list about using  
"=" as an assignment operator, with some people in favour of it  
simply because they were used to it in other languages. This didn't  
seem like a strong argument to me, and fortunately not to the RunRev  
people, either. (OK, I know it can be used in Global and Local  
declarations, but as some wise man once said "if you think it's  
possible to be completely consistent in everything, then show us by  
example!")



Mark

On 25 Feb 2006, at 16:22, Rob Cozens wrote:


Hi all--except Mr. X :{(


So if Transcript does go object-oriented -- and I hope and believe it
will, though it may be an alternative fork rather than a forced  
switch

-- I hope it *does* in fact adopt dot notation so that all of us who
have trained our brains to think in those terms when we create and
program with objects will e comfortable doing so.




We have had other conversations along this line, and the thing I  
find most interesting is that some of the people who readily extoll  
the virtues of Xtalk syntax also take the lead in suggesting that  
RRLtd use existing syntax from some other language to implement new  
features.


Dan wants dot notation, Richard has proposed Visual Basic syntax,  
some want C notation, etc.


I want Xtalk syntax.  I want my Transcript scripts to read like a  
novel; not a mathematical formula.  And I believe it is possible.


Did Winkler & Atkinson grab pieces of this syntax and that syntax  
from other platforms when they created HyperTalk?  My answer: "no,  
they created a logically integrated syntax that performed most of  
the same functions as FORTRAN, Basic, Pascal, C, etc. in a more  
readable and efficient syntax".


Suppose someone reviewed all existing programming languages,  
determined which has the "best" syntax for each operation, and  
created a language that combined them.  Would the result be the  
world's most efficient language or an illogical nightmare?


Additionally, simply incorporating existing syntax from another  
language dooms Transcript to "same-old, same-old" status and  
foregoes an opportunity to make it different & better than the  
competition.  I think Dan & Richard are among the best and  
brightest among us, and if they were motivated they (and the rest  
of us) could integrate the features they desire into an Xtalk  
syntax that fits logically into Transcript.


Sure it's harder than lobbying RRLtd to adopt a syntax one already  
knows; but the results, IMFO, are worth the extra effort.


Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company

"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."

from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Judy Perry]

Amen, Rob.

If it is OO *capabilities* that are desired, then fine: just provide them
in a natural-language manner (e.g., keep it transparent).

But the language paradigm simply cannot be allowed to be converted from a
focused, internally-consistent one into the mishm-mash of "whatever" (VB
syntax?  sure,  use it in this context; want dot.sytax for OO?  sure!  use
it here.. don't like the words stack, card etc.? heck, call them plates
and saucers and, well, whatever).

It simply will cease to be a coherent language at that point.  And,
whatever it will be, an x-Talk it will not.

Judy

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Rob Cozens wrote:

> We have had other conversations along this line, and the thing I find
> most interesting is that some of the people who readily extoll the
> virtues of Xtalk syntax also take the lead in suggesting that RRLtd use
> existing syntax from some other language to implement new features.
>
> Dan wants dot notation, Richard has proposed Visual Basic syntax, some
> want C notation, etc.
>
> I want Xtalk syntax.  I want my Transcript scripts to read like a
> novel; not a mathematical formula.  And I believe it is possible.
>
> Did Winkler & Atkinson grab pieces of this syntax and that syntax from
> other platforms when they created HyperTalk?  My answer: "no, they
> created a logically integrated syntax that performed most of the same
> functions as FORTRAN, Basic, Pascal, C, etc. in a more readable and
> efficient syntax".
>
> Suppose someone reviewed all existing programming languages, determined
> which has the "best" syntax for each operation, and created a language
> that combined them.  Would the result be the world's most efficient
> language or an illogical nightmare?
>
> Additionally, simply incorporating existing syntax from another
> language dooms Transcript to "same-old, same-old" status and foregoes
> an opportunity to make it different & better than the competition.  I
> think Dan & Richard are among the best and brightest among us, and if
> they were motivated they (and the rest of us) could integrate the
> features they desire into an Xtalk syntax that fits logically into
> Transcript.
>
> Sure it's harder than lobbying RRLtd to adopt a syntax one already
> knows; but the results, IMFO, are worth the extra effort.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Jeanne A. E. DeVoto]

At 4:25 PM -0600 2/24/2006, Peter T. Evensen wrote:

send "go" to traffic light...


That works for methods, but how about functions?

I have never liked the current transcript syntax of 
Value("GetCurrentColor()", TrafficLight).TrafficLight.GetColor() 
is much more readable, in my opinion.



Hmm.

  get the currentColor() of trafficLight

seems even more readable to me. Or, where trafficLight is actually a class,

  get the currentColor() of trafficLight "My Light"

(I agree that the value syntax for this is clumsy; I suspect it 
doesn't come up more often as a problem mostly because people tend to 
use getProp handlers for this sort of thing, rather than function 
calls, so the clumsiness is avoided.)

--
jeanne a. e. devoto ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.jaedworks.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Jim Ault]

On 2/25/06 1:31 PM, "Judy Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Amen, Rob.
> 
> If it is OO *capabilities* that are desired, then fine: just provide them
> in a natural-language manner (e.g., keep it transparent).
> 
> But the language paradigm simply cannot be allowed to be converted from a
> focused, internally-consistent one into the mishm-mash of "whatever" (VB
> syntax?  sure,  use it in this context; want dot.sytax for OO?  sure!  use
> it here.. don't like the words stack, card etc.? heck, call them plates
> and saucers and, well, whatever).
> 
> It simply will cease to be a coherent language at that point.  And,
> whatever it will be, an x-Talk it will not.

Part of the issue becomes the verbosity and having to use the "\" line
continuation frequently.

Consider, version 1
get the currentColor() of trafficLight "4wayType" of side "west" of avenue
"Hamilton" of street "Main" of city "Snowflake" of state "Arizona" of
country "US"

vs version 2
signalA = US.Arizona.Snowflake.Main.Hamilton.West.4WayType.currentColor()
signalB = US.Arizona.Snowflake.Main.Alex.East.LeftTurnType.currentColor()



Some would prefer version 1, others are used to version 2.

US.NV.Las Vegas.Ricardo.House.Ault.Jim  :-)   (Kinda has a ring to it, eh?)


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Dan Shafer]

Seems like there's a fair bit of paranoia abroad in this land. Just
making dot syntax an alternative -- or even implementing OO syntax
using it -- doesn't have to corrupt the underlying Transcript syntax
*except* for those people who choose an  OO approach to their Rev
projects. Hand-wringing about all the books (how many are there
again?) and other documents suddenly moving away from the elegant
xTalk syntax to dot notation for everything isn't necessary or
appropriate because that's hardly inevitable.

The Lingo case study doesn't work here because Macromedia essentially
made an internal decision to move away from its proprietary syntax
(which was quite xTalk-like) to dot notation. I was keenly aware of
that decision-making process as a consultant to the company and I can
tell you they were under a lot of pressure from *customers* to make
that switch.

There are a lot of linguistic-design and other technical reasons
affecting language performance to consider the dot notation when you
get into the dynamic allocation of instance methods and properties.

Would you rather have:

(a) No object orientation
(b) OO with the current syntax with poor performance
or
(c) OO with dot notation and acceptable performance

I'm not saying those are the *only* choices but they're the big ones.

--
~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Mark Smith]

On 26 Feb 2006, at 02:01, Dan Shafer wrote:


I'm not saying those are the *only* choices but they're the big ones.


So I'd rather have OO with the current syntax and acceptable  
performance :)


Mark
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Mikey]

Dot-syntax blows.  xTalk doesn't.

The problem with allowing radically different syntax conventions is
that you may soon wind up with a tool like *CENSORED*, where you can
mix and match the syntaxes of *CENSORED*, and pretty soon ask
yourself, why did I learn *CENSORED* and avoid learning *CENSORED*
when this jackass who wrote this code decided it would be fun to mix
them, which now makes my life harder?

datetime.now.asString
Come on.

In some ways xTalk was OO when it was still HT (set the visibile of
field "Oompa" to true).

Don't make me instantiate objects.  Don't make me declare variable
types.  That is SO 4GL.


Incidentially, I can't talk about many of the details of *CENSORED*
yet because it's still under wraps, but the fact that I can mix
syntaxes in the same method is certainly not one of its strong points,
IMHO.
--
On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth
On the second day, God created the oceans.
On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours,
   and did a little diving.
And God said, "This is good."
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Judy Perry]

Yes, perhaps (I don't agree, but obviously others would)...

However...

You now have TWO different ways of reading Transcript.

How do you know when and how?

And what if VB syntax gets added?  and ... whatever else it is syntax that
people can already do in some other pre-existing perfectly  ugly language
gets added?

put theResult()

it = Transcript becomes unreadable and unlearnable.

Judy

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Jim Ault wrote:

> Consider, version 1
> get the currentColor() of trafficLight "4wayType" of side "west" of avenue
> "Hamilton" of street "Main" of city "Snowflake" of state "Arizona" of
> country "US"
>
> vs version 2
> signalA = US.Arizona.Snowflake.Main.Hamilton.West.4WayType.currentColor()
> signalB = US.Arizona.Snowflake.Main.Alex.East.LeftTurnType.currentColor()
>
>

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Judy Perry]

Nonetheless, as a result, Dan,

Lingo became unlearnable/unapproachable from a verbos syntax point of
view.  And now it's dead. And, yes, the available books/list syntax
help/whatever played a HUGE part.  Handwringing has substantially less to
do with it than the absolute dearth of verbose syntax learning aids that
were available once the dot.syntax folks had their way.

Given the "pressure" (you? Richard? others?) might exert, why should we
think that Rev's approach would be any different than Macromedia's?
e.g., kill the very x-talk nature of Transcript that many of bought into
Rev because of?  Can you name the x-Talk language that's done what you are
asking for, remained an x-Talk, and survived?  Does this mythic beast
exist?  Why are you not using it already then?  Because it doesn't exist,
I suspect.

And why should you be able to get away with dismissing our concerns as
mere "paranoia"?  Do you really mean this?  Does our money spend less well
than yours?

If, as you say, dropping support for verbose syntax is "hardly
inevitable," can you show a single case in a major surviving x-talk
language where this is the case?  What do you know that suggests history
will not repeat itself?

Do you really want to be the father of the end of the last major surviving
x-Talk?

Either Transcript is an x-Talk or it isn't.  Without transparent
implementation of OO, there simply is NOT a medium ground.  Once you add
dot.syntax, Transcript simply no longer is an x-Talk.  Ditto, squared, for
once you then add VB syntax to make those folks happy.  And anything else
that non-x-Talk people want for implementation into Transcript.

Before you know it, what you will have is a mess of a "language" that
almost no-one will be happy with,  no-one can learn, and almost nobody
will be willing to pay to use.

I know I won't.

Given your list of choices, I'm forced to select (a).  When you're done,
will there be sufficient remaining existing and potential users to keep
the company afloat?

Judy

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Dan Shafer wrote:

> Seems like there's a fair bit of paranoia abroad in this land. Just
> making dot syntax an alternative -- or even implementing OO syntax
> using it -- doesn't have to corrupt the underlying Transcript syntax
> *except* for those people who choose an  OO approach to their Rev
> projects. Hand-wringing about all the books (how many are there
> again?) and other documents suddenly moving away from the elegant
> xTalk syntax to dot notation for everything isn't necessary or
> appropriate because that's hardly inevitable.
>
> The Lingo case study doesn't work here because Macromedia essentially
> made an internal decision to move away from its proprietary syntax
> (which was quite xTalk-like) to dot notation. I was keenly aware of
> that decision-making process as a consultant to the company and I can
> tell you they were under a lot of pressure from *customers* to make
> that switch.
>
> There are a lot of linguistic-design and other technical reasons
> affecting language performance to consider the dot notation when you
> get into the dynamic allocation of instance methods and properties.
>
> Would you rather have:
>
> (a) No object orientation
> (b) OO with the current syntax with poor performance
> or
> (c) OO with dot notation and acceptable performance
>

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Scott Kane]

Judy,

I'm not saying this *should* be done, so please take it
in the spirit it is meant, that is pure discussional value.

> Given your list of choices, I'm forced to select (a).  When 
> you're done, will there be sufficient remaining existing and 
> potential users to keep the company afloat?

The Mac end of development is pretty much cornered by Rev,
RealBasic, QT C++ and a few also-rans.  Many developers from
.notation backgrounds (Delphi, VB, C++ Builder and more recently
.Net) would jump at the chance to program for the Mac if they
didn't have to learn a new language construct - which to them
Revolution certainly is.  RealBasic uses .Notation - but it's
buggy, unstable and really rather crude (IMHO).  If a development
platform like Rev existed that had .Notation it would be a tremendous
boon to the Mac software community as it would be quicker and easier
to get up to speed (obvious user interface issues would still be a
learning curve - but then so it is anybody writing for Mac the first
time
using Rev).  Now - if I was running RunRev (and you can all be eternally
glad I'm not ) I'd seriously look at creating a new product that did
exactly that.  A .Notation version of Rev.  That would keep the
X-Talkers
happy and would bring in new blood - much faster - IMHO - than Rev does.
I've recommended Rev to several developers who work with Windows
.notation
platforms.  They have all been scared off by transcript as it is as
alien
to them as is .notation to many transcript people.  Interestingly they
have all also reject RealBasic (to buggy), QT C++ (to fragmented) and
several new IDE's currently in the initial stages of release.  I really
do believe RunRev could increase their market share by a larger factor
considering by considering this issue.

It's a compromise.  X-Talks for those that want it or .notation for
those
that do not.  It's not a far stretch as many development platform
companies
(Borland and MS for example) do exactly that with, for example object
Pascal, C++ etc
all under their wing.

Scott


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Dan Shafer]

My Gosh, Judy, you do get emotional about the strangest stuff. Lighten
up. This is a theoretical discussion about language syntax, not a
public policy decision that could result in the deaths of millions.

Yeesh.

I'll deal with your personal insult off-list because I don't believe
in responding to flames in public.

The reasons behind Lingo's death include the syntax issue but are far
from limited to it. There were dozens of stupid mistakes made with
that product, the least of which was probably the language change,
which, as I said earlier, was made at the request of a significant
number of users.

Other comments inline below.

On 2/25/06, Judy Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Can you name the x-Talk language that's done what you are
> asking for, remained an x-Talk, and survived?  Does this mythic beast
> exist?  Why are you not using it already then?  Because it doesn't exist,
> I suspect.
>
Perhaps more to the point, can you name ANY surviving xTalk? Nope.
They're all pretty much dead except for Transcript. I could argue with
equal weight and perhaps a tad less vitriol that the *reason* they are
dead is becuas they didn't adapt to the world of object orientation.
You pick on the one thing about xTalks that you happen to like and
declare it the ultimate feature without which the language will die
but the issue is so much more complex than that.

> And why should you be able to get away with dismissing our concerns as
> mere "paranoia"?  Do you really mean this?  Does our money spend less well
> than yours?
>
As I said, I'll deal with this insult offlist.

> If, as you say, dropping support for verbose syntax is "hardly
> inevitable," can you show a single case in a major surviving x-talk
> language where this is the case?  What do you know that suggests history
> will not repeat itself?
>
If there were any surviving xTalks this question might even have been
interesting.

> Do you really want to be the father of the end of the last major surviving
> x-Talk?
>
Leave out the word "major." And anyone on this list who knows me --
which you clearly do not despite repeated efforts on my part to be
kind to you -- will laugh at the stupidity of that question. There are
probably not a lot of people on the planet who have done more to help
tools like this one survive than me and that's not bragging. I have
argued strongly against some language pollution that I thought would
harm Transcript. That we disagree about whether this particular change
would have a deleterioius effect is -- or should be -- a matter of
linguistic and academic interest and preference, not personal attack.

> Either Transcript is an x-Talk or it isn't.

Who says? What body standardizes the definition of "xTalk?" Hell,
'xTalk' isn't even a word. The "x" stands for "uinknown" or "generic."
> Without transparent
> implementation of OO, there simply is NOT a medium ground.

Perhaps you are a programming language compiler expert and you really
know this. I disagree and I suspect I have at least as much basis for
my view as you do for yours.

>Once you add
> dot.syntax, Transcript simply no longer is an x-Talk.  Ditto, squared, for
> once you then add VB syntax to make those folks happy.  And anything else
> that non-x-Talk people want for implementation into Transcript.
>
I do not advocate adding VB or other syntax. This discussion is about
how best to implement object orientation syntactically in a language
that has historically been not at all object oriented but only
object-like. If RR decides not to implement OO into Transcript, I
won't lose any sleep over it and I sure won't abandon it. As I said,
lighten up. This is (or at least started out as) a friendly discussion
about how to adpot objects in Transcript.

> Before you know it, what you will have is a mess of a "language" that
> almost no-one will be happy with,  no-one can learn, and almost nobody
> will be willing to pay to use.
>
> I know I won't.
>
So what you're saying is that if RR chooses to adopt an object
orientation and adopts a syntax you don't like, you'll stop using the
best tool on the market for building xplat apps? Wow, that's really
wise.

> Given your list of choices, I'm forced to select (a).  When you're done,
> will there be sufficient remaining existing and potential users to keep
> the company afloat?
>
Strange question. My question would be whether there are enough
existing and potential users NOW to keep the company afloat in a sea
of Ruby and Python and Java and JavaScript, all of which use object
orientation.

--
~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runre

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Garrett Hylltun]

On Feb 25, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Dan Shafer wrote:


My Gosh, Judy, you do get emotional about the strangest stuff. Lighten
up. This is a theoretical discussion about language syntax, not a
public policy decision that could result in the deaths of millions.

Yeesh.

I'll deal with your personal insult off-list because I don't believe
in responding to flames in public.


When you say others on the list are paranoid, are you not insulting  
them?


-Garrett
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Garrett Hylltun]

On Feb 25, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Scott Kane wrote:

[snip]


It's a compromise.  X-Talks for those that want it or .notation for
those
that do not.  It's not a far stretch as many development platform


Wouldn't it be smarter to just leave Rev alone and simply produce  
another standalone product that fits the dot. ideals?


Don't even mix the two at all, just make separate products.  It would  
be totally asinine to mutilate Rev into some abomination.


-Garrett
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Judy Perry]

Scott,

Creating a .notation of Rev will NOT keep strict x-Talkers happy.  I may
be the most vocal opponent, but I suspect I am far, far, from the only
one.

And, well, probably *everyone's* happy that I'm not in charge... ;-)

Judy

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Scott Kane wrote:

> Judy,
> The Mac end of development is pretty much cornered by Rev,
> RealBasic, QT C++ and a few also-rans.  Many developers from
> .notation backgrounds (Delphi, VB, C++ Builder and more recently
> .Net) would jump at the chance to program for the Mac if they
> didn't have to learn a new language construct - which to them
> Revolution certainly is.  RealBasic uses .Notation - but it's
> buggy, unstable and really rather crude (IMHO).  If a development
> platform like Rev existed that had .Notation it would be a tremendous
> boon to the Mac software community as it would be quicker and easier
> to get up to speed (obvious user interface issues would still be a
> learning curve - but then so it is anybody writing for Mac the first
> time
> using Rev).  Now - if I was running RunRev (and you can all be eternally
> glad I'm not ) I'd seriously look at creating a new product that did
> exactly that.  A .Notation version of Rev.  That would keep the
> X-Talkers
> happy and would bring in new blood - much faster - IMHO - than Rev does.
> I've recommended Rev to several developers who work with Windows
> .notation
> platforms.  They have all been scared off by transcript as it is as
> alien
> to them as is .notation to many transcript people.  Interestingly they
> have all also reject RealBasic (to buggy), QT C++ (to fragmented) and
> several new IDE's currently in the initial stages of release.  I really
> do believe RunRev could increase their market share by a larger factor
> considering by considering this issue.
>
> It's a compromise.  X-Talks for those that want it or .notation for
> those
> that do not.  It's not a far stretch as many development platform
> companies
> (Borland and MS for example) do exactly that with, for example object
> Pascal, C++ etc
> all under their wing.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Scott Kane]

> Wouldn't it be smarter to just leave Rev alone and simply produce  
> another standalone product that fits the dot. ideals?
> 
> Don't even mix the two at all, just make separate products.  
> It would  
> be totally asinine to mutilate Rev into some abomination.

Err - that's exactly the intention of my post.  No need to 
mutilate Rev.  The language (any language) is just an abstraction
layer between the IDE and the compiler.

Scott


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Judy Perry]

Dan,

Wait a minute...

*MY* personal insult???  Weren't you the one who dealt my argument the
death blow of being mere "paranoia"?  After having personally resurrected
it from irrelevantdom?

Does it get more personal than that?  I am paranoid therefore my arguments
need not be considered?

And I was just about to issue a postscript to remind people that I wasn't
attacking you, only your argument that people who oppose dot.syntax are
paranoid...

Forget Jeesh.  Holy cow!

It was not a personal attack.  I posited that I thought dot.syntax was an
unwise addition to the language.  You responded by saying that my argument
constituted paranoia.  Now, that's personal.  You didn't say that my
argument was wrong... no, you said I was paranoid.  That's personal.

Did I say you were a jerk?  No, but you said I was paranoid.

Can no-one disagree with your positions without resulting rancor?

Judy

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Dan Shafer wrote:

> My Gosh, Judy, you do get emotional about the strangest stuff. Lighten
> up. This is a theoretical discussion about language syntax, not a
> public policy decision that could result in the deaths of millions.
>
> Yeesh.
>

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Scott Kane]

Judy,

> Creating a .notation of Rev will NOT keep strict x-Talkers
> happy.  I may be the most vocal opponent, but I suspect I am 
> far, far, from the only one.

Why would a version of a product that you yourself would
never use be something you'd be opposed to?  I'm not sure
I follow you...

Cheers

Scott


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Dick Kriesel]

Is there a Transcript implementation of dot syntax?  Or how do non-dot
people learn about the benefits of dots?  If the dot folks could wrap the
dots within Transcript handlers, maybe they could offer a dot library, like
libDot.  Or could a macro language do the trick?  What do dots enable that
Transcript does not?

Looking forward to more good humor on the list.

The Entourage spell checker suggests replacing libDot with libido.

-- Dick 


On 2/25/06 10:26 PM, "Judy Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Scott,
> 
> Creating a .notation of Rev will NOT keep strict x-Talkers happy.  I may
> be the most vocal opponent, but I suspect I am far, far, from the only
> one.
> 
> And, well, probably *everyone's* happy that I'm not in charge... ;-)
> 
> Judy
> 
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Scott Kane wrote:
> 
>> Judy,
>> The Mac end of development is pretty much cornered by Rev,
>> RealBasic, QT C++ and a few also-rans.  Many developers from
>> .notation backgrounds (Delphi, VB, C++ Builder and more recently
>> .Net) would jump at the chance to program for the Mac if they
>> didn't have to learn a new language construct - which to them
>> Revolution certainly is.  RealBasic uses .Notation - but it's
>> buggy, unstable and really rather crude (IMHO).  If a development
>> platform like Rev existed that had .Notation it would be a tremendous
>> boon to the Mac software community as it would be quicker and easier
>> to get up to speed (obvious user interface issues would still be a
>> learning curve - but then so it is anybody writing for Mac the first
>> time
>> using Rev).  Now - if I was running RunRev (and you can all be eternally
>> glad I'm not ) I'd seriously look at creating a new product that did
>> exactly that.  A .Notation version of Rev.  That would keep the
>> X-Talkers
>> happy and would bring in new blood - much faster - IMHO - than Rev does.
>> I've recommended Rev to several developers who work with Windows
>> .notation
>> platforms.  They have all been scared off by transcript as it is as
>> alien
>> to them as is .notation to many transcript people.  Interestingly they
>> have all also reject RealBasic (to buggy), QT C++ (to fragmented) and
>> several new IDE's currently in the initial stages of release.  I really
>> do believe RunRev could increase their market share by a larger factor
>> considering by considering this issue.
>> 
>> It's a compromise.  X-Talks for those that want it or .notation for
>> those
>> that do not.  It's not a far stretch as many development platform
>> companies
>> (Borland and MS for example) do exactly that with, for example object
>> Pascal, C++ etc
>> all under their wing.
> 
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Scott Kane]

> Is there a Transcript implementation of dot syntax?  Or how 
> do non-dot people learn about the benefits of dots?  If the 
> dot folks could wrap the dots within Transcript handlers, 
> maybe they could offer a dot library, like libDot.  Or could 
> a macro language do the trick?  What do dots enable that 
> Transcript does not?

Properties and methods.
 
> Looking forward to more good humor on the list.

:-)
 
> The Entourage spell checker suggests replacing libDot with libido.

Sexy object orientated code?  Sounds good.  

Scott


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Judy Perry]

Wishing, indeed, that there was such ensuing 'good humor'... as opposed to
rancour.

:-(

Am I the only remaining non-Vulcan??

Judy

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Dick Kriesel wrote:

> Is there a Transcript implementation of dot syntax?  Or how do non-dot
> people learn about the benefits of dots?  If the dot folks could wrap the
> dots within Transcript handlers, maybe they could offer a dot library, like
> libDot.  Or could a macro language do the trick?  What do dots enable that
> Transcript does not?
>
> Looking forward to more good humor on the list.
>
> The Entourage spell checker suggests replacing libDot with libido.
>

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Scott Kane]

> Am I the only remaining non-Vulcan??

Live long and prosper.  :-)

Scott 


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Geoff Canyon]

On Feb 25, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Dan Shafer wrote:


Would you rather have:

(a) No object orientation
(b) OO with the current syntax with poor performance
or
(c) OO with dot notation and acceptable performance

I'm not saying those are the *only* choices but they're the big ones.


Off the top of my head, I'd rather have

(d) real tables
(e) text rotation
(f) multi-channel sound support (I put this one in for Scott Rossi)
(g) co-routines
(h) anonymous functions
(i) inlining
(j) a map function
(k) (optional) variable typing
(l) macros

But that's me.

As far as object-orientation goes, I proposed object frontscripts and  
backscripts about three years ago as a way of achieving many of the  
advantages of OO without in any way changing the syntax of the  
language or the way it works.




Heck, I think I could implement a significant chunk of OO in Rev as  
it stands right now, and it wouldn't even take that long. Just insert  
a front script, tag an object with a custom property representing its  
"class," test the class of the target in the front script to call the  
appropriate class routine, and encapsulate values in custom  
properties. Automatic inheritance might be a bit tricky, but I'm sure  
something could be worked out.


That would go a long way toward the principals of OO without having  
to change anything.


I'll shut up now -- I'm tired and probably causing more trouble than  
I'm solving.


gc
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Geoff Canyon]

On Feb 25, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Scott Kane wrote:


What do dots enable that
Transcript does not?


Properties and methods.


Objects can already have properties, and methods as well. They can't  
have _inherited_ methods -- at least not in the traditional OO sense.  
An object inherits methods from its enclosing groups/card/stack.


And indeed, as I incautiously said in another email a moment ago, I  
think I could implement something very like class methods using a  
frontscript.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Scott Kane]

> (f) multi-channel sound support (I put this one in for Scott Rossi)

Ooooh!  I'd like that.

Scott


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Jeanne A. E. DeVoto]

At 12:20 AM -0800 2/26/2006, Geoff Canyon wrote:

(g) co-routines
(h) anonymous functions


What are co-routines and anonymous functions? (Curious...)
--
jeanne a. e. devoto ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.jaedworks.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Judy Perry]

Without personal attacks, (well, as much as is human) my responses are
below:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Dan Shafer wrote:

> Perhaps more to the point, can you name ANY surviving xTalk? Nope.
> They're all pretty much dead except for Transcript. I could argue with
> equal weight and perhaps a tad less vitriol that the *reason* they are
> dead is becuas they didn't adapt to the world of object orientation.
> You pick on the one thing about xTalks that you happen to like and
> declare it the ultimate feature without which the language will die
> but the issue is so much more complex than that.

So, I am puzzled: I have understood you to be at the vanguard of those
supporting x-Talks; the above seems to suggest that Transcript is on life
support because it does NOT support dot.syntax.

Do x-Talks suck then?  If so, why are we all here?

I mean, there are oodles and oodles (if not bazillions) of OO languages
out there. Why are we all here and not there?

If we wanted to be there, we would be, no?  But, no, we're here.  Aren't
we?  I know I am.  Last time I checked, this was still the Rev list, not
the C++/Java/C.dot.syntax.flavour.of.the.month.PLEASE.SHOOT.THE
IDIOT.WHO.INSISTED.ON.THIS CRAP list.

(okay, I'm in a bad mood.  I apologize to Dan for the latter all-caps part
of the dot.syntax above.  It pisses me off when people call me names --
especially when I haven't called them names).  Still, we get the drift,
don't we?

> > If, as you say, dropping support for verbose syntax is "hardly
> > inevitable," can you show a single case in a major surviving x-talk
> > language where this is the case?  What do you know that suggests history
> > will not repeat itself?
> >
> If there were any surviving xTalks this question might even have been
> interesting.

Oh, so, Transcript doesn't really count then, does it?

DOES IT???!!!  Is Transcript not an x-Talk???

Okey-dokey, so, now, not only is my argument "paranoia" or even
"hysteria", not it's  just plain irrelevant?

LET ME QUOTE:

DS:  "If there were any surviving xTalks this question might even have
been interesting."

Gee -- do the good folks in Edinburgh have this insight?  Do they not
understand that they're marketing a completely useless, nonexistent
product?

> > Do you really want to be the father of the end of the last major surviving
> > x-Talk?
> >
> Leave out the word "major." And anyone on this list who knows me --
> which you clearly do not despite repeated efforts on my part to be
> kind to you -- will laugh at the stupidity of that question.

--How many people are laughing?  Wow.  I must be really stupid.  Even
stupider than you thought you were being magnanimously, incredibly
charitably kind to.  Now, I'm not just paranoid or even hysterical; I'm
just plain stupid.  Completely unworthy of your attention except that
you see fit to call me onlist???

There are
> probably not a lot of people on the planet who have done more to help
> tools like this one survive than me and that's not bragging. I have
> argued strongly against some language pollution that I thought would
> harm Transcript.

--Exactly.  That is why I thought we could agree to disagree.  Until the
name-calling set in, that is.

That we disagree about whether this particular change
> would have a deleterioius effect is -- or should be -- a matter of
> linguistic and academic interest and preference, not personal attack.
>

--So, why again, did you decide to attack me personally for daring to
disagree with you???

Did I not posit arguments that were (a) linguistic and (b) learnable?  Can
you show this?  See the next line below:

> > Either Transcript is an x-Talk or it isn't.
>
> Who says?

--Well, Umm, youz saids... don't you??? in like, every book you've ever
written on the subject???

What body standardizes the definition of "xTalk?" Hell,
> 'xTalk' isn't even a word. The "x" stands for "uinknown" or "generic."
> > Without transparent
> > implementation of OO, there simply is NOT a medium ground.


---Umm..., so, it's like, nothing, or , whatever, which is exactly what I
said it would become if what you propose and others have proposed would
happened to the language:  that it would become a "whatever" language
paradigm.

And,  I'm still waiting to see how this is really a very good and
markedtable idea...


>
> Perhaps you are a programming language compiler expert and you really
> know this. I disagree and I suspect I have at least as much basis for
> my view as you do for yours.

No, indeed, I am fervent in my opinion BECAUSE I have respect for yours!
Because you've offered (I think, please do correct me kindly and with
respect for the facts if I am incorrect) how very difficult it would be
for Transcript to include OO functionalities _transparently_ that I
differ.

But I certainly welcome your ingenuous solution as to how to circumvent
that difficulty and thus support the x-Talk language that you, as no
other, have labored to support.

Judy

__

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Dan Shafer]

Judy.

I preferred to take this off-llist. You chose to make it a public
fight. I choose not to engage.

I did not intend that anyone would see my comment about paranoia as an
attack on any individual or indeed on any specific position on this
issue. I was referring to the general level of heat that arose around
what seemed to me to be a fairly unemotional, intriguing technical
discussion.

You implied strongly that I somehow thought I was better than everyone
else, going so far as to suggest that I thought my money had more
value than everyone else's. That's ridiculous.

I will bow out of this conversation now. I apologize to anyone who was
offended by my flip use of the word "paranoia." And maybe now it's
time for me to stop starting new discussions on this board at all.

What a sad turn of events.


On 2/25/06, Judy Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan,
>
> Wait a minute...
>
> *MY* personal insult???  Weren't you the one who dealt my argument the
> death blow of being mere "paranoia"?  After having personally resurrected
> it from irrelevantdom?
>
> Does it get more personal than that?  I am paranoid therefore my arguments
> need not be considered?
>
> And I was just about to issue a postscript to remind people that I wasn't
> attacking you, only your argument that people who oppose dot.syntax are
> paranoid...
>
> Forget Jeesh.  Holy cow!
>
> It was not a personal attack.  I posited that I thought dot.syntax was an
> unwise addition to the language.  You responded by saying that my argument
> constituted paranoia.  Now, that's personal.  You didn't say that my
> argument was wrong... no, you said I was paranoid.  That's personal.
>
> Did I say you were a jerk?  No, but you said I was paranoid.
>
> Can no-one disagree with your positions without resulting rancor?
>
> Judy
>
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Dan Shafer wrote:
>
> > My Gosh, Judy, you do get emotional about the strangest stuff. Lighten
> > up. This is a theoretical discussion about language syntax, not a
> > public policy decision that could result in the deaths of millions.
> >
> > Yeesh.
> >
>
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>


--
~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Judy Perry]

You and me both... for many a year now!!!

'cuz I look really stupid -- no, even stupider than people think I am,
really -- when I offer up to my students Scott Raney's "explanation" that
'it can't be done on Windows'...

Judy

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Scott Kane wrote:

>
> > (f) multi-channel sound support (I put this one in for Scott Rossi)
>
> Ooooh!  I'd like that.
>
> Scott
>
>
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Garrett Hylltun]

On Feb 26, 2006, at 12:41 AM, Dan Shafer wrote:


Judy.

I preferred to take this off-llist. You chose to make it a public
fight. I choose not to engage.

I did not intend that anyone would see my comment about paranoia as an
attack on any individual or indeed on any specific position on this
issue. I was referring to the general level of heat that arose around
what seemed to me to be a fairly unemotional, intriguing technical
discussion.

You implied strongly that I somehow thought I was better than everyone
else, going so far as to suggest that I thought my money had more
value than everyone else's. That's ridiculous.

I will bow out of this conversation now. I apologize to anyone who was
offended by my flip use of the word "paranoia." And maybe now it's
time for me to stop starting new discussions on this board at all.

What a sad turn of events.


Maybe if you would talk to everyone and not down on everyone and  
accept that your opinion is just that, your opinion, and that others  
may or may not agree with your opinion, and that others might  
actually have an opinion of their own, and that your opinion may not  
be the defacto opinion... E.. If you don't get the point this far  
into it then disregard.


I wasn't even in this topic, but ya even ticked me off with the "Dan  
Shafer is all knowing and all powerful... kneel before my splendor,  
revel in my glorious ideas, and make it so; you little minions of  
mine!" attitude.  That might be a bit of a harsh way of saying it,  
but not sure how to put it into something that won't totally offend you.


-Garrett
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Richard Gaskin]

The Secret Cause of Flame Wars
By Stephen Leahy

"Don't work too hard," wrote a colleague in an e-mail
today. Was she sincere or sarcastic? I think I know
(sarcastic), but I'm probably wrong.

 According to recent research published in the Journal
 of Personality and Social Psychology, I've only a
 50-50 chance of ascertaining the tone of any e-mail
 message. The study also shows that people think they've
 correctly interpreted the tone of e-mails they receive
 90 percent of the time.

 "That's how flame wars get started," says psychologist
 Nicholas Epley of the University of Chicago, who
 conducted the research with Justin Kruger of New York
 University. "People in our study were convinced they've
 accurately understood the tone of an e-mail message when
 in fact their odds are no better than chance," says Epley.
 




--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Dave Cragg]

On 26 Feb 2006, at 09:04, Richard Gaskin wrote:


The Secret Cause of Flame Wars
By Stephen Leahy

"Don't work too hard," wrote a colleague in an e-mail
today. Was she sincere or sarcastic? I think I know
(sarcastic), but I'm probably wrong.

 According to recent research published in the Journal
 of Personality and Social Psychology, I've only a
 50-50 chance of ascertaining the tone of any e-mail
 message. The study also shows that people think they've
 correctly interpreted the tone of e-mails they receive
 90 percent of the time.

 "That's how flame wars get started," says psychologist
 Nicholas Epley of the University of Chicago, who
 conducted the research with Justin Kruger of New York
 University. "People in our study were convinced they've
 accurately understood the tone of an e-mail message when
 in fact their odds are no better than chance," says Epley.
 


What do you mean by that? :-)

Cheers
Dave
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Scott Kane]

> The Secret Cause of Flame Wars
> By Stephen Leahy

That's why the :-) ;-)  :-(  :-O
are so useful...   >-)

Scott


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Geoff Canyon]

On Feb 26, 2006, at 12:33 AM, Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote:


At 12:20 AM -0800 2/26/2006, Geoff Canyon wrote:

(g) co-routines
(h) anonymous functions


What are co-routines and anonymous functions? (Curious...)


A co-routine is kind of like a thread except that it only yields time  
at certain spots (and under your control). This makes it easier to  
understand and manage.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroutine



Coroutines are useful to implement the following:

State machines within a single subroutine, where the state is  
determined by the current entry/exit point of the procedure; this can  
result in more readable code.
Actor model of concurrency, for instance in computer games. Each  
actor has its own procedures (this again logically separates the  
code), but they voluntarily give up control to central scheduler,  
which executes them sequentially (this is a form of cooperative  
multitasking).
Generators, and these are useful for input/output and for generic  
traversal of data structures.




Anonymous functions are functions that you declare on the fly to  
accomplish some (usually small) task. They're commonly (most often?)  
used with a map function, which takes a function and a list, and  
applies the function to every item in the list.


So (imagining in transcript) suppose you have a variable that  
contains a bunch of one-line sentences, and you want the last word of  
each line. You could do this:


put empty into tResult
repeat for each line L in tList
  put (the last word of L) & cr after tResult
end repeat
delete char -1 of tResult

With anonymous functions you could do something like this:

put map("lines",(anonfunction (L) (the last word of L)),tList) into  
tResult


Map works on lists, but in transcript there's more than one way to  
delimit a list, so I added an initial argument to set the delimiter.


regards,

Geoff
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Chipp Walters]

Garrett,

From the brief readings of your few previous posts, it's apparent while 
you have very little history with our list and community, you are 
certainly quick to join in the fray.


Both Judy and Dan are respected list members, who both have contributed 
over a long time to this list, worthy help, opinions and value. As such, 
your recent flame towards Dan was both mean-spirited and certainly not 
necessary. Perhaps my opinion of you will change when you have helped 
this community 1/100 of what Dan has contributed.


-Chipp

Garrett Hylltun wrote:

Maybe if you would talk to everyone and not down on everyone and  accept 
that your opinion is just that, your opinion, and that others  may or 
may not agree with your opinion, and that others might  actually have an 
opinion of their own, and that your opinion may not  be the defacto 
opinion... E.. If you don't get the point this far  into it then 
disregard.


I wasn't even in this topic, but ya even ticked me off with the "Dan  
Shafer is all knowing and all powerful... kneel before my splendor,  
revel in my glorious ideas, and make it so; you little minions of  
mine!" attitude.  That might be a bit of a harsh way of saying it,  but 
not sure how to put it into something that won't totally offend you.


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[David Vaughan]

People, this is not cool. Sleep time.

cheers
David
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Garrett Hylltun]

On Feb 26, 2006, at 2:24 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:


Garrett,

From the brief readings of your few previous posts, it's apparent  
while you have very little history with our list and community, you  
are certainly quick to join in the fray.


Both Judy and Dan are respected list members, who both have  
contributed over a long time to this list, worthy help, opinions  
and value. As such, your recent flame towards Dan was both mean- 
spirited and certainly not necessary. Perhaps my opinion of you  
will change when you have helped this community 1/100 of what Dan  
has contributed.


-Chipp


Ahh, the "Good Ol' Boy" system, and since I'm the new kid on the  
block, it's not my place to voice my opinion on something that came  
through this list.  But since Judy and Dan are part of the "Good Ol'  
Boy" system, it's ok for them to voice their opinion, even have a flame.


I would not care if he was the king of some country, how he talked to  
Judy and anyone who did not share is view, was wrong, regardless of  
his standings in the "Good Ol' Boy" system.  It's not right.


For that fact, there's a whole lot of OT BS on this list by those who  
feel they have the right use this list as their personal forum.  I  
guess one needs to be in the "Good Ol' Boy" system to do this.


The list title is "How to use Revolution", not "Dan's personal  
podium".  That, and if you're going to express something on a forum  
like this, I do believe that any user of the list has the right to  
respond, regardless of status quo among the squatters claiming  
territorial rights.


Since I joined this list, I have seen so much OT BS going on that  
it's even started to get on my nerves, and I should not have to  
unsubscribe so that those involved can continue to use this list a  
personal playground.  I very much appreciate the help I've been  
getting, but the rest of it needs to go.  It's almost as bad as spam!


In a 24 hour period, there were approximately 41 OT emails through  
this list, and approximately 28 questions/answers, of which many of  
those went OT after the questions were answered.


And within the last week, I've seen two questions go completely  
unanswered.  But there are 60+ emails regarding "Transcript and Dot  
Notation"!!!  There are 29 emails regarding "On the Democratic  
Operation of Bugzilla".  So does that seem right to you or anyone  
else?  Is it right that people are allowed to flex and stroke their  
ego's here and some people slip through the cracks who needed help?


Had not all these OT threads about 'zilla this and zilla that, I  
would not be getting upset and getting involved in these things.  And  
I'm not flaming Dan yet, just voicing my opinion of how I see his  
actions.  My real view of him thus far is that he's a pompous ass.   
Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, only what he thinks will ever  
be correct or viable.


Rev should setup a forum instead of a mailing list.  You can setup a  
Misc section on the forum for this kind of stuff, sections for  
various levels of user experience, dedicated sections for specific  
aspects of using Rev, etc.


So in the end, as long as there are going to be OT opinions, expect  
that anyone will reply to them, and it doesn't have to be someone  
from the "Good Ol' Boy" system that replies, it can be anyone who  
feels they have an opinion regarding the topic.  You know, a little  
OT banter is ok now and then, but when the OT stuff begins to cloud  
the purpose of it, then there's something wrong.


When I realized I was getting too deep into an OT topic recently, I  
asked that anyone who wanted to continue it  with me personally to  
email me directly, and I've since removed myself from that topic  
because it does not belong on the list.  I'll do the same again  
here.  Anyone wants to continue this topic with me, feel free to  
email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Trust me, I have a whole lot  
more that I would, could, should say on this, but this isn't the  
place for it.


And anyone else who's got the need to talk about this topic, or of my  
involvement in it, take it to personal emails instead of on this list.


-Garrett
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Scott Kane]

> Ahh, the "Good Ol' Boy" system, and since I'm the new kid on the  
> block, it's not my place to voice my opinion on something that came  
> through this list.  But since Judy and Dan are part of the "Good Ol'  
> Boy" system, it's ok for them to voice their opinion, even 
> have a flame.

<*Sigh*>

Scott


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Thomas McGrath III]

classMyObject:
 def __init__ (self):
 self.initialize()
 def initialize(self):
 self._value=None
 def _setProperty (self, name, value):
 print "set property"
 setattr (self, name, value)
 def _getProperty (self, name):
 print "get property"
 return getattr (self, name)
 #properties
 value = property (lambda self: self._getProperty("_value"),
  lambda self, value: self._setProperty("_value",
value))



Tom
On Feb 25, 2006, at 11:26 PM, Mikey wrote:


Dot-syntax blows.  xTalk doesn't.

datetime.now.asString
Come on.



Thomas J McGrath III
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Lazy River Software™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com

Lazy River Metal Art™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com/metal.html

Meeting Wear™ - http://www.cafepress.com/meetingwear

Semantic Compaction Systems - http://www.minspeak.com

SCIconics, LLC - http://www.sciconics.com/sciindex.html







___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Rob Cozens]

Dan, Richard, et al:


Just
making dot syntax an alternative -- or even implementing OO syntax
using it -- doesn't have to corrupt the underlying Transcript syntax
*except* for those people who choose an  OO approach to their Rev
projects.


So dot syntax is optional...UNLESS people choose to use the OO 
constructs we are hoping for in some future release?


So the option is "use or don't use objects", not "use or don't use dot 
syntax".


How about RRLtd implements OO in an XTalk manner first, and then we 
talk about a dot notation option?  At least then it would be a _real_ 
option.


Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company

"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."

from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Rob Cozens]

Hi Garrett,


Ahh, the "Good Ol' Boy" system


No, it's the "family" system.

Some of us began these discussions over 15 years ago on the early 
HyperCard lists.  We have discussed many on- and off-topic issues over 
the years, publicly and privately.  We explore off topic issues more 
broadly than many stick-to-the-topic lists allow--to listmom Heather's 
distraction sometimes, bless her--and know more about our fellow 
members because of it.


We know each other well enough to cut each other some slack and 
continue to respect one another once tempers have cooled down.  We are 
passionate about RunRev and may tend to pull fewer punches in our 
conversation, especially when we have a long history of conversation 
with the other party.


Since you are working with Revolution, you are a member of the family.

But as the long-lost cousin we've only just met, don't you feel it's 
unwise to intervene in a dispute between Cousin Judy and Cousin Dan in 
the manner you did without knowing them both a little better?


Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company

"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."

from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Stephen Barncard]

Dude, your rights to post to this list are rapidly diminishing. This 
list is MODERATED, and Runrev and the listmom reserve the right to 
boot you at any time, for any reason they wish.


I'd say cool it - for the rest of us, and for your own sake, if you 
want to get anything out of this list.


Pleae sit back and listen for a while. Or leave, please.

sqb






Ahh, the "Good Ol' Boy" system, and since I'm the new kid on the 
block, it's not my place to voice my opinion on something that came 
through this list.  But since Judy and Dan are part of the "Good Ol' 
Boy" system, it's ok for them to voice their opinion, even have a 
flame.


I would not care if he was the king of some country, how he talked 
to Judy and anyone who did not share is view, was wrong, regardless 
of his standings in the "Good Ol' Boy" system.  It's not right.




--
stephen barncard
s a n  f r a n c i s c o
- - -  - - - - - - - - -
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Dan Shafer]

I have slept on this. I have decided to take the advice of my wife and
other sages whose wisdom I admire. It is better to be happy than
right. This picture is not who I am or who I want to be, here or
anywhere else.

I sincerely apologize to Judy, and to any member of the list who was
insulted by my comments in any way. This issue is not one about which
I am emotional; I am sorry I let it become an emotional discussion.

In the end, it not only doesn't matter to me whether or how RunRev
implements objects, there isn't a single issue in the entire realm of
Revolution worth personal insult and injury of any kind.

I am, appropriately, humbled.

On 2/26/06, David Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> People, this is not cool. Sleep time.
>
> cheers
> David
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>


--
~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Mark Brownell]

>On Feb 25, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Scott Kane wrote:
>
>>> What do dots enable that
>>> Transcript does not?
>>
>> Properties and methods.
>
>Objects can already have properties, and methods as well. They can't  
>have _inherited_ methods -- at least not in the traditional IO sense.  
>An object inherits methods from its enclosing groups/card/stack.
>
>And indeed, as I incautiously said in another email a moment ago, I  
>think I could implement something very like class methods using a  
>front script.
>
>
>--

Perhaps a few of you around here will find this funny, I could do an 
implementation of OOPs with a pull-parser.  The trick to creating a child 
object is to assign attributes of the parent object to a child object. What is 
needed during the birthing process is an allocation of memory to store the 
newly incarnated child and to act on it independently while effecting the 
parent that can also have global changing effects if desired. 

Objects of the element type  sets and child objects like 
 sets or child  objects like  & 
 can be stored in arrays. There could be a function written with 
Transcript that uses elements of the parent object to create child versions 
that are stored in an array and that are called at memory locations 1, 2, 3, 
etc.

An example parent object could have attributes for width, hight, color, 
category, etc.


  field
  Test Object
  variable
  variable
  variable
  yes/no
  Parent Object Test


A function of birthing a child object would come from attributes found in the 
parent object while passing values during creation.

put birthChildObject("Test Object", 200, 300, "21 by 56", yes, "Test Field 
One") into pObjectArray[1]. The rule being that elements found in the parent 
object are located in the function as a descending order.

There would be support functions that would create the XML, change the XML, and 
parse the XML so that methods could be created to interact with the child 
objects found in pObjectArray[1]

There could be a function to change a variable value in the width element to a 
fixed value that can have a global effect on all child objects. This would 
transform the width element in each child or it could have an overall function 
of following the parent and ignoring the individual values in each child.

All that is needed is the ability to perceive or anticipate the parent. So a 
completed construct to anticipate known attributes needs to be made available 
for type elements. This leaves non-keyword elements for new, unknown parent 
objects or elements.

Crazy huh?
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Dan Shafer]

Before Lingo adopted dot notation, it had an intermediate parent-child
"xTalk varietal" approach. I've forgotten now how it worked but I
recall it was hard to learn and very slow.

That may or may not have any bearing on this design, however.


On 2/26/06, Mark Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 25, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Scott Kane wrote:
> >
> >>> What do dots enable that
> >>> Transcript does not?
> >>
> >> Properties and methods.
> >
> >Objects can already have properties, and methods as well. They can't
> >have _inherited_ methods -- at least not in the traditional IO sense.
> >An object inherits methods from its enclosing groups/card/stack.
> >
> >And indeed, as I incautiously said in another email a moment ago, I
> >think I could implement something very like class methods using a
> >front script.
> >
> >
> >--
>
> Perhaps a few of you around here will find this funny, I could do an 
> implementation of OOPs with a pull-parser.  The trick to creating a child 
> object is to assign attributes of the parent object to a child object. What 
> is needed during the birthing process is an allocation of memory to store the 
> newly incarnated child and to act on it independently while effecting the 
> parent that can also have global changing effects if desired.
>
> Objects of the element type  sets and child objects like 
>  sets or child  objects like  & 
>  can be stored in arrays. There could be a function written 
> with Transcript that uses elements of the parent object to create child 
> versions that are stored in an array and that are called at memory locations 
> 1, 2, 3, etc.
>
> An example parent object could have attributes for width, hight, color, 
> category, etc.
>
> 
>   field
>   Test Object
>   variable
>   variable
>   variable
>   yes/no
>   Parent Object Test
> 
>
> A function of birthing a child object would come from attributes found in the 
> parent object while passing values during creation.
>
> put birthChildObject("Test Object", 200, 300, "21 by 56", yes, "Test Field 
> One") into pObjectArray[1]. The rule being that elements found in the parent 
> object are located in the function as a descending order.
>
> There would be support functions that would create the XML, change the XML, 
> and parse the XML so that methods could be created to interact with the child 
> objects found in pObjectArray[1]
>
> There could be a function to change a variable value in the width element to 
> a fixed value that can have a global effect on all child objects. This would 
> transform the width element in each child or it could have an overall 
> function of following the parent and ignoring the individual values in each 
> child.
>
> All that is needed is the ability to perceive or anticipate the parent. So a 
> completed construct to anticipate known attributes needs to be made available 
> for type elements. This leaves non-keyword elements for new, unknown parent 
> objects or elements.
>
> Crazy huh?
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>


--
~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[John Tregea]

I know this has been a long thread, but...

I am not sure how Revolution ISN't already OO? I create groups of objects to
achieve some specific task (during my authoring stage) then during runtime
in the compiled app, I clone that group with the attributes (approx 200 to
300 variable states plus user defined properties), rename it to suitable
name and Voila! OO? No?

Maybe there is more to it from a C++ coders point of view, but I am a H/C
programmer from way back and the addition of user defined attributes in Rev
was a real breakthrough.

Regards

John T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Shafer
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:45 PM
To: Mark Brownell; How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

Before Lingo adopted dot notation, it had an intermediate parent-child
"xTalk varietal" approach. I've forgotten now how it worked but I
recall it was hard to learn and very slow.

That may or may not have any bearing on this design, however.


On 2/26/06, Mark Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 25, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Scott Kane wrote:
> >
> >>> What do dots enable that
> >>> Transcript does not?
> >>
> >> Properties and methods.
> >
> >Objects can already have properties, and methods as well. They can't
> >have _inherited_ methods -- at least not in the traditional IO sense.
> >An object inherits methods from its enclosing groups/card/stack.
> >
> >And indeed, as I incautiously said in another email a moment ago, I
> >think I could implement something very like class methods using a
> >front script.
> >
> >
> >--
>
> Perhaps a few of you around here will find this funny, I could do an
implementation of OOPs with a pull-parser.  The trick to creating a child
object is to assign attributes of the parent object to a child object. What
is needed during the birthing process is an allocation of memory to store
the newly incarnated child and to act on it independently while effecting
the parent that can also have global changing effects if desired.
>
> Objects of the element type  sets and child objects like
 sets or child  objects like  &
 can be stored in arrays. There could be a function written
with Transcript that uses elements of the parent object to create child
versions that are stored in an array and that are called at memory locations
1, 2, 3, etc.
>
> An example parent object could have attributes for width, hight, color,
category, etc.
>
> 
>   field
>   Test Object
>   variable
>   variable
>   variable
>   yes/no
>   Parent Object Test
> 
>
> A function of birthing a child object would come from attributes found in
the parent object while passing values during creation.
>
> put birthChildObject("Test Object", 200, 300, "21 by 56", yes, "Test Field
One") into pObjectArray[1]. The rule being that elements found in the parent
object are located in the function as a descending order.
>
> There would be support functions that would create the XML, change the
XML, and parse the XML so that methods could be created to interact with the
child objects found in pObjectArray[1]
>
> There could be a function to change a variable value in the width element
to a fixed value that can have a global effect on all child objects. This
would transform the width element in each child or it could have an overall
function of following the parent and ignoring the individual values in each
child.
>
> All that is needed is the ability to perceive or anticipate the parent. So
a completed construct to anticipate known attributes needs to be made
available for type elements. This leaves non-keyword elements for new,
unknown parent objects or elements.
>
> Crazy huh?
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>


--
~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Judy Perry]

Problem is, I don't know of any emoticons that say:

"I make this argument in all sincerity with no covert aspersions on your
character."

Unless you'd like to point me to it, of course (I could so clearly use it
in my "arsenal"...).

Judy

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Scott Kane wrote:

>
> > The Secret Cause of Flame Wars
> > By Stephen Leahy
>
> That's why the :-) ;-)  :-(  :-O
> are so useful...   >-)

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[John Vokey]

All,
I'd rather stick pins in my eyes.  Seriously:  what is gained here  
that can't be accomplished with either a) copy and paste (my  
favourite) or b) object duplication (my next favourite)?


I have programmed in virtually every language extant (and many no  
longer), including most machine languages, assemblers, and their ugly  
``high-level'' equivalents (e.g., C, C++), flipping (real) switches  
in octal on the face of the ``computer'' to initialise the ``boot- 
loader'' so that the machine could get started.  I do not need, want,  
or care about OO-dot.syntax shite except that it is a terribly ugly,  
long-winded, opaque way of doing the obvious. Transcript is easy for  
*everyone*, beginner or expert; that is its 5th GL glory.


We *could* require programming RR in pdp-8l assembler (which, no  
doubt, would thrill most of the old pdp-8l assembler programmers--of  
which I am one), but what of it?  Who would think that was an  
advance?  How about DEC-Basic (also on pdp-8l computers)?  HP rpl  
code (I have hundreds of HP-21C programs that would benefit)?  How  
about APL? I loved that language (even though it required a strange  
type-ball on the IBM selectrics we used as terminals to the  
university mainframe)!  Forth?  Really, TILs (threaded interpretative  
languages), like forth, have long been known to be the fastest, most  
concise languages of all time---often beating optimised compiled  
languages (like C, which is well known to be slower than languages  
such as Pascal).  Fortran? Wait, I really liked fortran...  Apple  
floating-point Basic?  Yeah (especially if the ROM code were  
included; I have all those old Apple ][ programs and subroutines just  
waiting...)!  6502 assembler?  Yes!  I was a wizard at that shite  
(using multiple entries into the same code to do different things to  
save a single byte of code--those were the days!).


Bottom line?  Tried them all (conducted research, published, even  
published code in most).  I like/love transcript (aka metatalk,  
hypertalk).  I get more done in minutes than I ever did in hours with  
these other languages/systems.  Which is why I use RR/MC.  The rest  
can just f-f-f-f-f-ade away...



On 26-Feb-06, at 9:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Perhaps a few of you around here will find this funny, I could do  
an implementation of OOPs with a pull-parser.  The trick to  
creating a child object is to assign attributes of the parent  
object to a child object. What is needed during the birthing  
process is an allocation of memory to store the newly incarnated  
child and to act on it independently while effecting the parent  
that can also have global changing effects if desired.


--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See 

-Dr. John R. Vokey



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Arthur Urban]

Well, certainly Revolution is OO-like, but it's hard for me coming from 
a strong OOD/OOP background to see it as a legitimate OO offering. The 
number one rule of encapsulation seems "broken" most of the time in 
xtalk-like languages. When I have multiple buttons on a card that have 
the same behavior, instead of each button being an instance of a single 
behavior template, the behavior is often divorced from the very 
object(s) it is meant to work with, in favor of residing at a "higher" 
level in the message hierarchy. Not only does this lead to "where is 
that piece of code?", but object reusability suffers, and measurably 
hurting code maintainability as well. At best I can have libraries of 
stand-alone code segments, not behavior and data wedded in structure. 
Further, the "objects" in Revolution often suffer from being tightly 
coupled, usually the sign of bad OOD, but in this case it is also a side 
effect of the reduced set of actual objects (fields, buttons, cards, 
etc.) that are available. However, I'm always surprised by what I can 
pull off with this product; a credit to it's ability to use it's own 
structures in non-traditional means! :)


John Tregea wrote:

I know this has been a long thread, but...

I am not sure how Revolution ISN't already OO? I create groups of objects to
achieve some specific task (during my authoring stage) then during runtime
in the compiled app, I clone that group with the attributes (approx 200 to
300 variable states plus user defined properties), rename it to suitable
name and Voila! OO? No?

Maybe there is more to it from a C++ coders point of view, but I am a H/C
programmer from way back and the addition of user defined attributes in Rev
was a real breakthrough.

Regards

John T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Shafer
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:45 PM
To: Mark Brownell; How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

Before Lingo adopted dot notation, it had an intermediate parent-child
"xTalk varietal" approach. I've forgotten now how it worked but I
recall it was hard to learn and very slow.

That may or may not have any bearing on this design, however.


On 2/26/06, Mark Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

On Feb 25, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Scott Kane wrote:

  

What do dots enable that
Transcript does not?
  

Properties and methods.


Objects can already have properties, and methods as well. They can't
have _inherited_ methods -- at least not in the traditional IO sense.
An object inherits methods from its enclosing groups/card/stack.

And indeed, as I incautiously said in another email a moment ago, I
think I could implement something very like class methods using a
front script.


--
  

Perhaps a few of you around here will find this funny, I could do an


implementation of OOPs with a pull-parser.  The trick to creating a child
object is to assign attributes of the parent object to a child object. What
is needed during the birthing process is an allocation of memory to store
the newly incarnated child and to act on it independently while effecting
the parent that can also have global changing effects if desired.
  

Objects of the element type  sets and child objects like


 sets or child  objects like  &
 can be stored in arrays. There could be a function written
with Transcript that uses elements of the parent object to create child
versions that are stored in an array and that are called at memory locations
1, 2, 3, etc.
  

An example parent object could have attributes for width, hight, color,


category, etc.
  


  field
  Test Object
  variable
  variable
  variable
  yes/no
  Parent Object Test


A function of birthing a child object would come from attributes found in


the parent object while passing values during creation.
  

put birthChildObject("Test Object", 200, 300, "21 by 56", yes, "Test Field


One") into pObjectArray[1]. The rule being that elements found in the parent
object are located in the function as a descending order.
  

There would be support functions that would create the XML, change the


XML, and parse the XML so that methods could be created to interact with the
child objects found in pObjectArray[1]
  

There could be a function to change a variable value in the width element


to a fixed value that can have a global effect on all child objects. This
would transform the width element in each child or it could have an overall
function of following the parent and ignoring the individual values in each
child.
  

All that is needed is the ability to perceive or anticipate the parent. So


a completed construct to anticipate known attributes needs to be made
available for type elements. This leaves non-keyword elements for new,
u

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Stephen Barncard]

It's nice to see some new 'old school' programmers on this list! What 
a great perspective...


welcome aboard to this listif you've just been lurking until now..


sqb
--
stephen barncard
s a n  f r a n c i s c o
- - -  - - - - - - - - -
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Judy Perry]

I have likewise refrained from even opening my computer (a laptop) to read
email until now, a good or nearly 24 hours after the initial
conflagration, in order to try to gain some balance and composure and
understanding.

I've got a big mouth, by which I mean to convey that I am an opinionated
individual (D'oh..., right?).  I feel strongly, if not passionately, about
issues I espouse.  With rare exception, I grant the same to the opposing
party, assuming that they, too, feel passionate about their point of view.
If one does not respect the person with whom one is disagreeing, what is
the point of discourse?  Why discourse with those you do not respect?

But I NEVER wish to be guilty of character assasination of those with whom
I debate.  The issue is the issue, whatever it be: it is open to attack,
er, debate.  The person, however, is entirely another matter: the person
is to be respected.  Period.

And so I apologize to Dan for having offended him. Dot.syntax is
certainly fair game; Dan as a human being, however, is not.  I respect him
as an intelligent human being and as a long-standing champion of the
x-Talk family of languages.

Judy

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Dan Shafer wrote:

> I have slept on this. I have decided to take the advice of my wife and
> other sages whose wisdom I admire. It is better to be happy than
> right. This picture is not who I am or who I want to be, here or
> anywhere else.
>
> I sincerely apologize to Judy, and to any member of the list who was
> insulted by my comments in any way. This issue is not one about which
> I am emotional; I am sorry I let it become an emotional discussion.
>
> In the end, it not only doesn't matter to me whether or how RunRev
> implements objects, there isn't a single issue in the entire realm of
> Revolution worth personal insult and injury of any kind.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Stephen Barncard]

Love conquers all!!
It's a beautiful world today.

sqb


And so I apologize to Dan for having offended him.
Judy

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Dan Shafer wrote:

 > I have slept on this. I have decided to take the advice of my wife and


--
stephen barncard
s a n  f r a n c i s c o
- - -  - - - - - - - - -
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Mark Wieder]

Mark-

Sunday, February 26, 2006, 12:36:57 PM, you wrote:

> Perhaps a few of you around here will find this funny, I could do
> an implementation of OOPs with a pull-parser.  The trick to creating
> a child object is to assign attributes of the parent object to a
> child object. What is needed during the birthing process is an
> allocation of memory to store the newly incarnated child and to act
> on it independently while effecting the parent that can also have
> global changing effects if desired. 

Sounds like this would work for properties, but not for handlers. If I
get you right, changing a property in the parent would then trickle
down to the children (and granchildren, etc). So the parent class
would actually keep track of its children, rather than the children
keeping track of their parent.

-- 
-Mark Wieder
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Scott Kane]

> in octal on the face of the ``computer'' to initialise the ``boot- 
> loader'' so that the machine could get started.  

Sometimes I miss converting hex and oct into decimal.
I started my professional career (as opposed to my teenage
programming) programming Data Checker DTS cash registers.
The "zero report" and comparing it to other master machines
for the location of corruption (a common event in memory at
that time) was so eloquent.  

Scott


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Scott Kane]

> I'd rather stick pins in my eyes.  

Kids, don't try this at home...  ;-)

Scott


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Robert Brenstein]

Well, certainly Revolution is OO-like, but it's hard for me coming 
from a strong OOD/OOP background to see it as a legitimate OO 
offering. The number one rule of encapsulation seems "broken" most 
of the time in xtalk-like languages. When I have multiple buttons on 
a card that have the same behavior, instead of each button being an 
instance of a single behavior template, the behavior is often 
divorced from the very object(s) it is meant to work with, in favor 
of residing at a "higher" level in the message hierarchy. Not only 
does this lead to "where is that piece of code?", but object 
reusability suffers, and measurably hurting code maintainability as 
well. At best I can have libraries of stand-alone code segments, not 
behavior and data wedded in structure. Further, the "objects" in 
Revolution often suffer from being tightly coupled, usually the sign 
of bad OOD, but in this case it is also a side effect of the reduced 
set of actual objects (fields, buttons, cards, etc.) that are 
available. However, I'm always surprised by what I can pull off with 
this product; a credit to it's ability to use it's own structures in 
non-traditional means! :)




Well, I kept out of this discussion so far, but this post stroke a chord.

May be instead of discussing dot notation virtues versus purity of 
Transcript, the thing to discuss first should be what true OO would 
bring to Revolution. In other words, what is missing in Rev from OO 
paradigm that would truly benefit MAJORITY of Rev users? Do we really 
need full OO stuff? May be the current pseudo-OO with some new parent 
type object and some construct parallel to get/setprop for functions 
can suffice.


Having OO stuff just for the sake of having (that is marketing) is 
pointless in my mind since IMHO Rev will never (at least not soon) 
compete directly against C++/Obj-C and others in enterprise or 
commercial development. Among its winning aspects are RAD features 
and ease of cross-platform deployment, but IMHO it is not 
particularly suitable for development done by larger teams, so some 
of advertised OO advantages are sort of moot.


Robert
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Mikey]

I need to stop going to bed.  The best posts are while I'm sleeping.

Hey, John, stop hating on Apple FP BASIC!  Its predecessor, Integer
Basic, was used from when EPCOT Center in Disney World opened until
almost ten years later to control the spotlights during Laserphonic
Fantasy.

Oh, and while the PDP-8's assembly language (it was the same name as
some other language - APL?  CPM?) was great (and had as many commands
as many high-level languages), it hardly compared to the VAX version,
with all of its addressing modes.
--
On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth
On the second day, God created the oceans.
On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours,
   and did a little diving.
And God said, "This is good."
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Alex Tweedly]

John Vokey wrote:


All,
I'd rather stick pins in my eyes.  Seriously:  what is gained here  
that can't be accomplished with either a) copy and paste (my  
favourite) or b) object duplication (my next favourite)?


Quote: "If I could change one thing to improve the quality of our code, 
it would be to disable the Copy/Paste button in the editor."


Now that may be an extreme position (and I can't remember where it comes 
from either :-), but I think it has a lot of merit. There's not a lot of 
perfect code in the world (*), so every time you duplicate code, you're 
actually duplicating some bugs - so when you eventually find them, 
you'll need to track down all the duplicates too.


That's why creation and use of functions, handlers and libraries is one 
of the best *long-term* productivity boosters. It can make the initial 
step take longer - to abstract out the correct functionality and put it 
into a library - but in the long run it can save you.


OO simply takes that one step further, allowing you to apply the "share 
commonality" principle more widely.



(*) even if you do have "bug-free" code, the world around you can change 
in a way that requires changes in your code - and duplicates can be a 
problem.


btw - "you" in the above paragraphs really means "me". I'm making no 
assertions about anyone else's code; I know that my code always has 
bugs, and that copy/paste has caused me a lot of heartache over the years.



--
Alex Tweedly   http://www.tweedly.net



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/2006

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Thomas McGrath III]

01010011 0110 01110010 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111  
0010 01110100 01101000 01110010 0110 01110101 01100111  
01101000 0010 01101100 01101001 01101110 01100101 01110011  
0010 0110 01100110 0010 01100010 01101001 01101110  
0111 01110010 0001 0010 01101001 01110011 0010  
01110011 01100101 0000 0001 0010 01100010 01110101  
01110100 0010 01101110 0110 01110100 0010 01110110  
01100101 01110010 0001 0010 0111 01110010 0110  
01100100 01110101 01100011 01110100 01101001 01110110 01100101 00101110


On Feb 27, 2006, at 2:54 AM, Scott Kane wrote:


in octal on the face of the ``computer'' to initialise the ``boot-
loader'' so that the machine could get started.


Sometimes I miss converting hex and oct into decimal.
I started my professional career (as opposed to my teenage
programming) programming Data Checker DTS cash registers.
The "zero report" and comparing it to other master machines
for the location of corruption (a common event in memory at
that time) was so eloquent.  

Scott


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


Thomas J McGrath III
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Lazy River Software™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com

Lazy River Metal Art™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com/metal.html

Meeting Wear™ - http://www.cafepress.com/meetingwear

Semantic Compaction Systems - http://www.minspeak.com

SCIconics, LLC - http://www.sciconics.com/sciindex.html







___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Jim Ault]

On 2/27/06 6:53 AM, "Thomas McGrath III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 01010011 0110 01110010 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111
> 0010 01110100 01101000 01110010 0110 01110101 01100111
> 01101000 0010 01101100 01101001 01101110 01100101 01110011
> 0010 0110 01100110 0010 01100010 01101001 01101110
> 0111 01110010 0001 0010 01101001 01110011 0010
> 01110011 01100101 0000 0001 0010 01100010 01110101
> 01110100 0010 01101110 0110 01110100 0010 01110110
> 01100101 01110010 0001 0010 0111 01110010 0110
> 01100100 01110101 01100011 01110100 01101001 01110110 01100101 00101110
> 

I agree with all but your second point about formatting.

Jim Ault
Las Vegas

> On Feb 27, 2006, at 2:54 AM, Scott Kane wrote:
> 
>>> in octal on the face of the ``computer'' to initialise the ``boot-
>>> loader'' so that the machine could get started.
>> 
>> Sometimes I miss converting hex and oct into decimal.
>> I started my professional career (as opposed to my teenage
>> programming) programming Data Checker DTS cash registers.
>> The "zero report" and comparing it to other master machines
>> for the location of corruption (a common event in memory at
>> that time) was so eloquent.  
>>


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Stephen Barncard]

Integer Basic rocked. It was faster than FP. And with the 'Sweet 
Sixteen' 6502 functions by Woz were really useful. I built a lot of 
crazy gear for the movie industry with this stuff.


sqb


I need to stop going to bed.  The best posts are while I'm sleeping.

Hey, John, stop hating on Apple FP BASIC!  Its predecessor, Integer
Basic, was used from when EPCOT Center in Disney World opened until
almost ten years later to control the spotlights during Laserphonic
Fantasy.


--
stephen barncard
s a n  f r a n c i s c o
- - -  - - - - - - - - -
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Rob Cozens]

Hi John:


I am not sure how Revolution ISN't already OO?


I used to feel the same way about HyperTalk: give me an OO concept, and 
I'll script something that emulates it.


The difference is, in a true OO language, those concepts are built into 
the platform when you open the box.


Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company

"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."

from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Karen]

On 27 Feb 2006, at 15:12, Stephen Barncard wrote:


Integer Basic rocked. It was faster than FP. And with the 'Sweet
Sixteen' 6502 functions by Woz were really useful. I built a lot of
crazy gear for the movie industry with this stuff.


My old favourites were Basic XL on the old Atari 800 (showing my age)  
and Fast ST Basic on the Atari ST.  I did a very nice little Election  
Program that predicted Scottish election results on the ST. Ah, those  
were the days...


It wasn't until I found Revolution that I managed to re-capture the  
enthusiasm and enjoyment that I used to get when programming.  I can  
actually write things (well, some things), rather than struggle with  
obscure syntax.


Karen
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[John Tregea]

Dear Rob,

Thanks for the information.

Cheers

John

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Cozens
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 12:33 AM
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

Hi John:

> I am not sure how Revolution ISN't already OO?

I used to feel the same way about HyperTalk: give me an OO concept, and 
I'll script something that emulates it.

The difference is, in a true OO language, those concepts are built into 
the platform when you open the box.

Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company

"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."

from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Mark Brownell]

>Mark-

>Sunday, February 26, 2006, 12:36:57 PM, you wrote:

>> Perhaps a few of you around here will find this funny, I could do
>> an implementation of OOPs with a pull-parser.  The trick to creating
>> a child object is to assign attributes of the parent object to a
>> child object. What is needed during the birthing process is an
>> allocation of memory to store the newly incarnated child and to act
>> on it independently while effecting the parent that can also have
>> global changing effects if desired. 

>Sounds like this would work for properties, but not for handlers. If I
>get you right, changing a property in the parent would then trickle
>down to the children (and granchildren, etc). So the parent class
>would actually keep track of its children, rather than the children
>keeping track of their parent.

-- 
>-Mark Wieder

Mark,

It's a trick. There is not really a relationship between the objects. There is 
just a command structure that implies an association and that gives you basic 
tools that are at best only OOPs like. Parents keeping track of the children 
works well in nature and for this ad-hoc example of inheritance.
 
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Sivakatirswami]

And some of us don't know anything *but* xTalk, and  I'm happy i don;'t

dot notation and such... let's be very careful...find a way to do the  
same thing in verbose xTalk and it will live...infect the language  
with obscurity and it will die a slow death from the inside out.


If everyone commented  their code well, maybe we could live with  
obscure syntax.. but...


While extending the range of functionality can be a good thing...Do  
not underestimate importance of three "viabilities:"


1. the post production comprehensibility
2. revisit the objects yourself 6 months later, does it still make sense
3. if you delegate the code base  to someone else, can they actually  
read it


These three "viabilities" can in themselves determine if the language  
will live or die.


Go Live is almost dead... did anyone read Adobe's white paper on the  
level of abstraction of GoLive's auto generated JAVA? Adobe flatly  
stated (my paraphrase) "You will never be able to understand this  
code; you will never be able to intelligently touch or tweak it, and  
we have no intention of engineering GoLive to generate intelligible  
code, if your secretaries use the WSWIG interface and produce web  
garbage, it's not our problem. If it works in Safari, but not I.E.  
and there is no way on earth to debug the page, it's not our problem.  
If you think you will ever be able to pass the corpus of web content  
created by our program to the next generation staffers, forget it."


May StackWare never walk down that path...




On Feb 27, 2006, at 7:31 AM, Karen wrote:



It wasn't until I found Revolution that I managed to re-capture the  
enthusiasm and enjoyment that I used to get when programming.  I  
can actually write things (well, some things), rather than struggle  
with obscure syntax.


Karen


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

[Bob Warren]

Dear Sivakatirswami,

I was brought up on Basic and VB. In VB (VB6 I mean, not VB.NET), the 
dot notation is not all that obscure, but nevertheless, after making the 
transition to Transcript and its verbosity, the fact that someone might 
consider making it more like VB makes my hair stand on end, or in other 
words it would be "dotty" (pun intended). I agree that it would probably 
mark the beginning of a process of de-characterisation that eventually 
might be fatal. Of course, I haven't done a survey, but I suggest that 
(just like VB) a vast core of users are probably "inventive users" or 
very ordinary folk like myself, not professionals or (forgive me) nerdy 
types who have the greatest influence on this List and consequently the 
development path of RR. Look at what happened to VB when the nerds took 
over! From a record-breaking 18 million users, VB is now reduced to I 
don't know how many, but the fact is that M$ are now giving away their 
software to try and entice users back into the fold. I hope they fail 
after what they did to VB6 (which is why I am here and not there).


The secret of the success of VB (up to VB6) was that it could be used by 
programmers of all types, from absolute beginners to real professionals. 
This is a secret shared by Transcript. I'd hate to see Rev do a 
Microsoft. I couldn't take it twice in a lifetime.


One way of looking at it is this. Ordinary people prefer to program in 
something that more or less corresponds to plain language (it taxes the 
memory less). Many professionals seem to have a taste for formal 
languages of the logical or mathematical type. There is, of course, a 
place for such languages. But Transcript is a very high level 
general-purpose language. Why try and change it into something else? Are 
its formal deficiencies so great that something REALLY has to be done 
along "dotty" lines?


Regards,
Bob

---
Sivakatirswami wrote:
>dot notation and such... let's be very careful...find a way to do the
>same thing in verbose xTalk and it will live...infect the language
>with obscurity and it will die a slow death from the inside out.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

[MidiToolz]

--

> A function of birthing a child object would come from attributes found in
the parent object while passing values during creation.

I think somebody has had a little too much Jolt cola...

There are much better environments to do this in, like NetBeans
(www.netbeans.org) or Eclipse (www.eclipse.org).


> Crazy huh?

Yes, a little.
;-)


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation - the really "embarrassing" concepts IMHO

[jbv]

if you guys allow me to squeeze a few words in this (hot) thread,
I'd like to say that the initial post by Dan Shafer contains a couple of
sentences that I would qualify as, ahem "embarrassing", especially
due to Dan's huge contribution to the xTalk world for many years...

actually it reminds me of another "embarrassing" discussion that took
place on this very list a few months ago, in which Dan wrote that
goal-oriented interfaces were a huge step forward in UI design, no matter
if the rules were set by Microsoft...

Here's an example of what I find "embarrassing" :
"I hope it *does* in fact adopt dot notation so that all of us who
have trained our brains to think in those terms when we create and
program with objects will be comfortable doing so"

the embarrasing part being, IMHO : "all of us who have trained our brains
to think in those terms"

I have a background in ergonomics and psychology, and it is proven fact
for decades that newbies and experienced programers approach and memorize
algorithms in completely different ways (I have already discussed this a few
times on this list during the past years, so please check the archives for more
info).

But at the same time, AFAIR, xTalk (and specifically HC) were designed to
allow newbies, but also ppl with no background as programers but with enough
intellectual skills and rigour (and mostly no time and/or no desire to learn a
cumbersome language & notation) to develop sophisticated projects by themselves.
IOW, the design of xTalk & HC was to "train" computers to think in the human
way...
And it seems to me that now Dan is promoting the other way around : to adopt
dot notation because so far all OO languages use dot notation (mainly because 
they
have been created by prof. programers for prof. programers, except perhaps for
SmallTalk)... It really sounds like a big step backwards, back to a pre-HC and
pre-xTalk era... I've learned assembler in 1976-78 and believe me I do know
what it means to be "forced" to think in the same way as the computer...

Almost any algo can be described in a natural (verbose) language. If one says 
that
OO concepts benefit from dot notation (non natural language), does that imply 
that
the associated OO concepts are non natural by nature ? Frankly I don't think so 
:
AFAIR OO languages like SmallTalk have been created to promote more "natural"
concepts (sorry guys if I use such approximative words & concepts, but I really 
lack
time to develop this)... Anyway, I guess you see the pojt I'm trying to make, 
and
the paradox I'm pointing at...

Last but not least : as for the fact that dot notation means better 
implementation and
better performances, with computing power doubling every 18 months, I really 
wonder
how long this will remain an issue...

JB

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation - the really "embarrassing" concepts IMHO

[Dan Shafer]

"Those of us who haved trained our brains to think in those terms"
does not seem to me to imply any claim of superiority, just the very
differences that you point out. I am sorry if you thought that was an
embarrassing comment about which I ought to feel some shame.

But I'm bowing, scraping, and backing out of this whole mess apologetically.

In the future, I'll keep my strong opinions to myself.

On 2/26/06, jbv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if you guys allow me to squeeze a few words in this (hot) thread,
> I'd like to say that the initial post by Dan Shafer contains a couple of
> sentences that I would qualify as, ahem "embarrassing", especially
> due to Dan's huge contribution to the xTalk world for many years...
>
> actually it reminds me of another "embarrassing" discussion that took
> place on this very list a few months ago, in which Dan wrote that
> goal-oriented interfaces were a huge step forward in UI design, no matter
> if the rules were set by Microsoft...
>
> Here's an example of what I find "embarrassing" :
> "I hope it *does* in fact adopt dot notation so that all of us who
> have trained our brains to think in those terms when we create and
> program with objects will be comfortable doing so"
>
> the embarrasing part being, IMHO : "all of us who have trained our brains
> to think in those terms"
>
> I have a background in ergonomics and psychology, and it is proven fact
> for decades that newbies and experienced programers approach and memorize
> algorithms in completely different ways (I have already discussed this a few
> times on this list during the past years, so please check the archives for 
> more
> info).
>
> But at the same time, AFAIR, xTalk (and specifically HC) were designed to
> allow newbies, but also ppl with no background as programers but with enough
> intellectual skills and rigour (and mostly no time and/or no desire to learn a
> cumbersome language & notation) to develop sophisticated projects by 
> themselves.
> IOW, the design of xTalk & HC was to "train" computers to think in the human
> way...
> And it seems to me that now Dan is promoting the other way around : to adopt
> dot notation because so far all OO languages use dot notation (mainly because 
> they
> have been created by prof. programers for prof. programers, except perhaps for
> SmallTalk)... It really sounds like a big step backwards, back to a pre-HC and
> pre-xTalk era... I've learned assembler in 1976-78 and believe me I do know
> what it means to be "forced" to think in the same way as the computer...
>
> Almost any algo can be described in a natural (verbose) language. If one says 
> that
> OO concepts benefit from dot notation (non natural language), does that imply 
> that
> the associated OO concepts are non natural by nature ? Frankly I don't think 
> so :
> AFAIR OO languages like SmallTalk have been created to promote more "natural"
> concepts (sorry guys if I use such approximative words & concepts, but I 
> really lack
> time to develop this)... Anyway, I guess you see the pojt I'm trying to make, 
> and
> the paradox I'm pointing at...
>
> Last but not least : as for the fact that dot notation means better 
> implementation and
> better performances, with computing power doubling every 18 months, I really 
> wonder
> how long this will remain an issue...
>
> JB
>
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>


--
~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation - the really "embarrassing"concepts IMHO

[jbv]

Dan,

> "Those of us who haved trained our brains to think in those terms"
> does not seem to me to imply any claim of superiority, just the very
> differences that you point out. I am sorry if you thought that was an
> embarrassing comment about which I ought to feel some shame.
>

well again my poor english betrayed me... I never implied any claim of
superiority nor the need for you to feel some shame about anything...
I guess I was mistaken by the double meaning of the french equivalent of
"embarrassing"...
What I actually meant is that there seems to be a paradox (or even a 
contradiction)
between your support of xTalk world in general and certain opinions you
expressed recently on this list... I was discussing only possible apparent
inconsistencies... that's all...
So, in that context, "embarrassing" should be understood as : not sure how
to deal with those opinions...

JB

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation - the really "embarrassing"concepts IMHO

[Dan Shafer]

Understood.

Paradox is inevitable. Resolution of paradox leads to new truth. And
that's quite enough philosophizing for me for one day.

:-)

On 2/26/06, jbv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Dan,
>
> > "Those of us who haved trained our brains to think in those terms"
> > does not seem to me to imply any claim of superiority, just the very
> > differences that you point out. I am sorry if you thought that was an
> > embarrassing comment about which I ought to feel some shame.
> >
>
> well again my poor english betrayed me... I never implied any claim of
> superiority nor the need for you to feel some shame about anything...
> I guess I was mistaken by the double meaning of the french equivalent of
> "embarrassing"...
> What I actually meant is that there seems to be a paradox (or even a 
> contradiction)
> between your support of xTalk world in general and certain opinions you
> expressed recently on this list... I was discussing only possible apparent
> inconsistencies... that's all...
> So, in that context, "embarrassing" should be understood as : not sure how
> to deal with those opinions...
>
> JB
>
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>


--
~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation - the really "embarrassing" concepts IMHO

[Judy Perry]

No!

Dan:  does not progress occur more often when people disagree than when
they agree?

What is the incentive for progress when everyone is one big mass of
contented, happy campers?  (the Rev list comes to mind, for instance: is
it everybody being supremely contented that moves the company to fix bugs,
invent new functionalities?  I don't think so!).

Disagreement moves us along as a society, seeking a new common ground, new
solutions, novelty in general.

Strong opinions are a necessary ingredient (you would suspect me to claim
otherwise???).

;-)

Judy

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Dan Shafer wrote:

> In the future, I'll keep my strong opinions to myself.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution