The argument is, from my best friend the Java and Flash programmer "but I could do that in Java" or "That would look better in Flash."
I usually respond to him that I'm cat'ing all the contents of The Matrix DVD out to my printer and will mail it to him. Once he types it all in, I hope he enjoys the movie.
I have heard from him and others time and time again "but I can do that in [X]" ... He goes to great lengths to learn the newer (much better looking) gui toolkits for Java and then he figures since he knows how to do it, he doesn't need to look at any other option for making the GUI by an easier method. (one that may have been available in the first place).
I am like this too, sometimes, though. we all are. Often if I know only one way to get somewhere, I will drive that way every time. Someone else might know a way that cuts out 10 miles of driving, but I'm already comfortable with "my way." it is for this reason that I would stand behind the argument that changing the xTalk/Transcript syntax to make it more feasible to C-paradigm programmers is inappropriate. Having Rev installed on my powerbook does not erase GCC should I be so inclined...
Yours, Chris
On Feb 9, 2004, at 8:02 AM, Rob Cozens wrote:
If memory serves, none of these "standard" statements would pass a FORTRAN, COBOL, PL/1, Pascal, or Modula compiler or a BASIC interpreter.
Must C syntax prevail for a language to be non-"beginner-ish"?
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
