Hi, On Nov 28, 2007 12:10 AM, Ian Piumarta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ? attract many mainstream programmers > > No. Conducive to creating systems/languages (standard or otherwise) > that will attract the mainstream: YES!
I think this is where I have the biggest problems understanding what you're trying to achieve. Is it correct that we'll have a Lisp-like syntax at the lowest level and a Smalltalk-like syntax above (with some syntax sugar like in eToys?)? Why are you building two unpopular languages on top of each other? Why not just pick Lisp syntax for the foundation and then build a popular syntax on top of that? What are children supposed to use? The Smalltalk-like unpopular one (how much Smalltalk/eToys-like will it be, anyway?) or something totally different and more attractive to the general public? Did your (VPRI) research show that Children prefer Smalltalk-like syntax over Python-like syntax? Or does the fact that the children get taught (instead of self-taught) and have no syntax choice simply minimize the syntax issue? I guess you chose eToys because it's less cryptic/problematic than Smalltalk? Seriously, I can't imagine young children having fun learning the difference between: a < b whileTrue: [...] [a < b] whileTrue: [...] Bye, Waldemar Kornewald _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
