On Dec 6, 2007 6:00 PM, Jason Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 6, 2007 1:14 AM, Waldemar Kornewald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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? > > Why are you so concerned about popularity? If this concept can > achieve the productivity gains we all hope then only a small > percentage of todays programmers will be needed.
Your statement sounds like an assembler developer claiming that with C++'s productivity most programmers will become unnecessary. Mainstream developers are neither stupid nor are they unnecessary. Does that language suddenly make you more creative by a factor of 10? No, probably not. Who will get great ideas for new concepts, then? Do you seriously believe that with the new language we'll not be building anything different from what we have today? Don't you think this language will be used to build new systems that are far more complex than today? Then, we probably won't need less developers (actually, there will probably also be a lot more competing software companies and products if software development becomes much cheaper). Moreover, isn't one goal of this project to bring programming to the masses, so more people will be able to make computers help them with their work? How can this ever be achieved if the syntax is ugly and the language is difficult to use? Well, someone will create a popular COLA, anyway. > > I guess you chose eToys because it's less cryptic/problematic than > > Smalltalk? > > What does this sentence mean? In what way is Smalltalk problematic? > And if you find a language that reads like English cryptic then I > don't know what an ideal language would look like for you. The message syntax isn't bad, but the people I talked to told me that they absolutely didn't like all those cryptic ^$#:.| chars, among other things. Anyway, if the language will be inspired by eToys and also (but not only? :) intended for children then I'm pretty sure its syntax will be more than acceptable, so it's pointless to start a flamewar. Bye, Waldemar Kornewald _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
