We must create a standard that people editing our sorce code must obide
by. something that stops our xtalk language getting torn up into 100s of
different flavors or versions.
Maybe we can permit people to distribute modifyed code for the interface
but not the compiler/interpreter.
just a thought Julian Blackhirst
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The original goal was to create a truly cross-platform, object-oriented, user-
> > friendly, scriptable, development tool. Java is object-oriented and cross-
> > platform, perhaps it is more sensible, economically, to spend development
> > efforts on something like JavaCard. Picture all of the HyperTalk scripting
> > language and our familiar buttons, fields, cards, backgrounds and stacks... in
> > Java. Such an app would easily create cross-platform standalones. It would
> > run on MacOSX, or MacOS8, in addition to Windows because Java interpreters
> > exist on Wintel and Mac machines, in addition to Unix machines where Java, and
> > incidentally, MacOSX, spring forth. Perhaps this is the direction development
> > efforts may go, if we're lucky.
>
> < disclaimer > just my own opinion </ disclaimer >
>
> By having xTalk free (like Java) we can compete with Java. If we have an xTalk
> compiler that runs on any platform and is faster than Java we will have a product
> that many developers will be interested in. Making a JavaCard will not generate
> half as much excitement in the developer community, and excitements what we want.
> We want everybody to be as excited as we are about xTalk. I think xTalk is a
> hellofalot better than Java and less intimidating for people new to programming.
> It doesn't have the object orientated features of Java, but it might one day.
>
> < apologies > that sounded like a pep talk for some testosterone based sporting
> event </ apologies >
>
> Just me again,
>
> Andre
