Sure, this is a perfectly valid point. Most tools have their place; some are more extensible or perhaps farther-reaching than others...
I largely have no need for the power/etc. of C et al. Others likely do. I would just hate for the elegance and comprehensible nature of xTalks to be compromised because 'it's not how it's done in C' et al. Lingo is I think a good example. Started out okay, now is "a mishmash of C" and its original xTalk qualities, with the former taking over the latter... For the folks who need it, the traditional systems programming languages will probably always be there. I just hope that xTalks will, too. Judy On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, jbv wrote: > Funny how many of you seem to always approach this > discussion as X-talk vs C (or other languages)... > I already posted a similar remark to this list (or to the MC > list), but another point of view is possible : the association > of Xtalk and C can lead to a tremendous power in high end > projects, Rev & Xtalk being used to build top quality front > ends (with unbeatable productivity & cost ratios) while C > being used in externals for critical high end tasks (realtime > 3D, data base access and many other industrial & scientific > processes)... _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
