Amen, Rob. If it is OO *capabilities* that are desired, then fine: just provide them in a natural-language manner (e.g., keep it transparent).
But the language paradigm simply cannot be allowed to be converted from a focused, internally-consistent one into the mishm-mash of "whatever" (VB syntax? sure, use it in this context; want dot.sytax for OO? sure! use it here.. don't like the words stack, card etc.? heck, call them plates and saucers and, well, whatever). It simply will cease to be a coherent language at that point. And, whatever it will be, an x-Talk it will not. Judy On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Rob Cozens wrote: > We have had other conversations along this line, and the thing I find > most interesting is that some of the people who readily extoll the > virtues of Xtalk syntax also take the lead in suggesting that RRLtd use > existing syntax from some other language to implement new features. > > Dan wants dot notation, Richard has proposed Visual Basic syntax, some > want C notation, etc. > > I want Xtalk syntax. I want my Transcript scripts to read like a > novel; not a mathematical formula. And I believe it is possible. > > Did Winkler & Atkinson grab pieces of this syntax and that syntax from > other platforms when they created HyperTalk? My answer: "no, they > created a logically integrated syntax that performed most of the same > functions as FORTRAN, Basic, Pascal, C, etc. in a more readable and > efficient syntax". > > Suppose someone reviewed all existing programming languages, determined > which has the "best" syntax for each operation, and created a language > that combined them. Would the result be the world's most efficient > language or an illogical nightmare? > > Additionally, simply incorporating existing syntax from another > language dooms Transcript to "same-old, same-old" status and foregoes > an opportunity to make it different & better than the competition. I > think Dan & Richard are among the best and brightest among us, and if > they were motivated they (and the rest of us) could integrate the > features they desire into an Xtalk syntax that fits logically into > Transcript. > > Sure it's harder than lobbying RRLtd to adopt a syntax one already > knows; but the results, IMFO, are worth the extra effort. _______________________________________________ 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