>Alain : But not merely for compatibility reasons. The
>DO command is a very powerful feature.
>
>Dan Gelder : Serf probably shouldn't.
>
>Alain : Why have you chosen to NOT include DO in Serf?
>Do your reasons include the performance-hit of the DO
>command? Or because DO would be too difficult to
>implement? Or because you consider self-modifying code
>to be naughty programming? Does it have anything to do
>with the security-restrictions of platforms other than
>the Mac?
Alain, everyone,
If you have a well-written application, you don't really need "do". Do is
perfect for overcoming shortcomings, but there are ways around "do". E.g.
one could use "set script" in many cases, and with arrays, if-then-else and
such things, it's pretty unlikely "do" will be as important as it was
before. I believe that for compatibility reasons, "do" should be available,
and also in case there's any feature we missed. It's also convenient when
we need to implement the message box.
Serf does not have the compatibility point, which takes much of the need
for "do" away. If we start leaving out certain features completely, we'll
just be any open-source HC clone. But if we have 100% compatibility, we are
a viable alternative.
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
--- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
