On 24/10/15 23:04, J. Landman Gay wrote:
On 10/24/2015 1:51 PM, Richmond wrote:
as people are NOT computers, not vice-versa, I cannot see how an "Open
Language"
= with Human-like logic and endlessly extensible in a human-like fashion
is ever going to be possible.
Funny you bring that up, I just read this article minutes ago:
<http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/23/coding-academies-are-nonsense/>
To quote: "Who needs to code when you can use visual building blocks
or even plain English to describe intent? Advances in natural-language
processing and conceptual modeling will remove the need for
traditional coding from app development. Software development tools
will soon understand what you mean versus what you say."
So not everyone agrees with you.
The remarks about natural English in the article make me think LC
ought to be more prominent.
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that "someone" went 'off at the
mouth' a bit during
the Kickstarter and promised things that, either, they had no
intention of keeping, or promised
things that, really, they didn't realise would involve them in so
many unseen complexities that
they would be, effectively, unrealisable.
I know Mark Waddingham pretty well, and I've never heard him propose
anything that he didn't already have a good idea how to accomplish.
I'm not entirely sure why you equate my "someone" with Mark Waddingham;
who has quite adequately demonstrated to be
"a right Captain Sensible" :)
R.
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
