On 20 Oct 2007, at 12:24, Peter Alcibiades wrote:
Surely the current approach is only explicable in terms of a strategy
which
says, stay in the present niche? Not that its a bad thing, of course.
Not
that it is a mistaken strategy, not at all. Just how it surely is?
Actually every programming language provider would like his own
language to be the only one, after all then everybody would have to pay
insane amounts to use that language, no matter how badly it was made.
However to get there, in the current market, one has to give the
language away for free or for a meagre, razor thin margin. As you might
guess, "razor thin" does not result in huge allocable manpower for
anything at all. Therefore every language provider has to prioritise.
On the other hand, some languages have gone free, and normalised, and
free, and ruled by comitee. Therefore these languages, like almost
every free software, have exceptional documentation, but not much in
terms of a simple user interface.
So if you compare Lua, Python or Perl (I'd add Ruby) with RunRev,
you're comparing the wrong thing. These are all dominated by their arch
nemesis, C++, and are niche products themselves there.
RunRev is more comparable with ActionScript (Flash), RealBasic,
Silverlight or that newfangled Adobe thingy.
--
official ChatRev page:
http://chatrev.bjoernke.com
Chat with other RunRev developers:
go stack URL "http://homepage.mac.com/bvg/chatrev1.3.rev";
_______________________________________________
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
