At 03:14 PM 2/24/2006, you wrote:
I've said it before and will say it again: If true OO is what you really
want, why not just use one of the bazillion OO languages? Once Lingo went
down that route, it ceased to be a learnable language for ordinary humans.
I think there are two issues here, or two competing goals: make Rev a tool
for the masses (Dan's "Inventive User") and make Rev a more powerful
development tool (for the programmer/professional).
As a professional developer, I would welcome more object-oriented
facilities in Rev, but that can come at the price of making Rev less simple
(but it doesn't have to).
My goal is to get things done quickly and easily. Revolution allows me to
do that now. Adding OOP would probably make me more productive.
I could use one of the bazillion OO language, but I would not as productive
because I have to spend more time coding the things the Rev engine does for
me. Some of my solutions, however, might be cleaner and more elegant
because of the object-oriented nature of the program. I could more closely
tie code and data together into objects and not have to worry about
unintended interactions.
It seems that Rev is walking a fine line in trying to address these two
markets. I think they are doing a good job.
Peter T. Evensen
http://www.PetersRoadToHealth.com
314-629-5248 or 888-628-4588
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
