S.R. wrote:
"...xTalk is a high-level language well suited to most
application development, if not for bit-fiddling with low-level OS and
hardware features"
I should mention that while it has little to do with "low-level OS", I
have just been working with an application which, thanks to Revo
>From : mark mitchell
>Actually, the syntax is very easy and the grammar is obvious IF you are a
native English speaker. (Except for that damn onTO
>required for 'place', which gets me every time. I'm sure others can think of
their own pet peeves :-)
>Alas, it is (currently) an English dominated
At 11:54 AM +0200 5/27/02, Jean-Michel Lekston wrote:
>I said that X-talk (aka hyper-talk) is poor (not powered computer language)
>because it is very constrained one.
Transcript is very flexible, and also very powerful.
>What about structure ? (Or Class in object point of view)
Transcript has
Jean-Michel Lekston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is common mistake to think that computer language must be as near as
> possible to human pratical language.
It's also a common mistake to forget to take into account the
operation of the human brain, which remembers things tied to everyday
l
Jean-Michel Lekston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In fact i preferred said that x-talk (hyper-talk) is a simple
> script/macro language for event call-back of a GUI RAD
There's arguably a bit more to it than that.
If you don't already have this in your bookmarks, here's Osterhaut's paper
on the
On Monday, May 27, 2002, at 12:30 PM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
>
>> What about Multi-threading ?
>
> In general, multi-threading slows a computer down (time is spent
> switching contexts that could have been spent doing actual work).
> The send...in construct allows some of the same functionality w
