On 2/9/04 8:02 AM, "Dar Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 8, 2004, at 04:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> - for non-english-speaking students, today, the "javascript" syntax = >> the "flash" syntax = the "." syntax = the "ECMA" syntax = "the >> standard syntax for programming" = is not more difficult than the >> xtalk syntax. >> It is the same to teach and to learn "the property of myObjetc" than >> "myObject.property". The argument xTalk is easy was true 10 years ago, >> no more today. >> I am sure of that even for 12-15 years french speaking kids ; i do not >> know for english-speaking kids. > > In responding to Freak L.'s suggestion, I had ignored this. > > If I read Claude's comments right, the English-like syntax adds > nothing. This stops short of saying it gets in the way. > > Though I like the syntax for my own use and for teaching "junior > associates" (it does help), I think the English orientation might be > somewhat of a weakness in an global sense. I don't really know and I > don't think I'm much of a judge. > > Dar Scott
I was wonder that myself. If you were going to write for, say, Japanese users, instead of set the a of b to c you would say b no a wo c ni settei The grammar is practically opposite. It would be nice to also support a JavaScript-like: b.a = c notation doug _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
