Hey, Andre, I like this!
Phil Davis
Andre Garzia wrote:
Folks,
taking the risk of sounding naive, why can't we deal with objects the
way we deal with custom props?
for example imagine the following Traffic Light object with properties
and methods:
TrafficLight.stopColor --- Red
TrafficLight.attentionColor --- Yellow
TrafficLight.goColor --- Green!
TrafficLight.interval --- the interval for the cycle of
yellow to red, for example 10 secs.
TrafficLight.cycleInterval --- the period the traffic light
stays green or red before cycling, for example 45 secs.
Methods:
TrafficLight.go -- Starts with go.
TrafficLight.stop -- Go to stop....
So why can't we do transcript-ish things like:
set the stopColor of TrafficLight to red
set the interval of TrafficLight to 20 secs
and call methods like
send "go" to traffic light...
This would still be verbose enough to fell like transcript and maybe it
could address the problem of transforming transcript into a weird lingo
like language. Although I think that the parser for those things would
be a little hard...
anyway, Mark should have better thoughts than me on this...
On Feb 24, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Judy Perry wrote:
What possible competitive advantage does it offer to the company for
it to
transform Transcript into yet another bit player in a very major league?
With it being an x-Talk, it offers certain advantages, such as ease of
learning/reading, that are all but nonexistant in your "traditional"
programming languages. As such, it is a big player in a small
league, but
it's almost completely a league of its own, a league that the company
has
reported it finds profitable.
If, as we've often discussed, Rev is unable to compete with
C++/Java/dot.notation.flavor.of.the.month because of its very different
paradigm, how would making it over into just another minor OO language
make it more competitive?
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.
And, as for OO being OPTIONAL in Rev, remember that it was optional in
Lingo, too. Only, every single Lingo book on the market dealt in
dot.speak, not verbose speak. Code fragments that floated about for
public consumption tended to be dot.speak, not verbose speak.
Remember the guy who not long ago wrote to the list who had problems
possibly with case statements and pWhiches? What's going to happen when
those new users have a problem and everybody responds in dot.speak?
OPTIONAL dot.speak I fear will end Transcript's natural-language
orientation.
Judy
.this.that.thatotherthing.IsThisParticularDotSupposedToBeAMethodOrA
nObject.Sh
ootMeNow
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
