On Dec 6, 2007, at 21:28 , Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
I think my greatest misconception is about the eToys-like language. Will it be a full-fledged general-purpose language that you could use to build a serious office suite, the software of a car, or a satellite's software (without consulting a second language)?
Absolutely.
Or will it be more limited (to education) like eToys?
No, but the idea is to let people "open the hood" in an end-user system like Etoys, so even if you start out with a restricted and safe environment you can get at its guts, and its parts are made of the same fabric as the whole.
How is it related to Pepsi's Smalltalk-like syntax (actually: its successor)? Isn't that intended to be the "official" language (ignoring that you can build anything yourself or adjust post-Pepsi to your needs)?
It's not the "official" language. Ian could explain that better - but I'd say it is mainly historical, Pepsi was one of the first parts implemented, and is becoming increasingly obsolete. We happen to like a Smalltalky syntax for sending messages, so it was a natural choice, until we find something better.
Is Coke the language for developers implementing their own COLA? Then, will we have to use a certain amount of Smalltalk syntax in addition to Lisp for the implementation? The Brainfuck example had to use both, too.
It's not Lisp. It's S-expressions, chosen because they're one of the simplest conceivable syntaxes for tree-like data.
- Bert - _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
