I guess one cant win - one either makes things readable, or makes things recognisable for those coming from another language = say basic or C.
No that we have RB able to autocomplete code for us "Length" wouldn't be so painful to write. But I am against designing the language purely so it is easy to learn, particularly if it limits the kind of app that can be sensibly built in RB. There should be NO limits on what kind of app RB can build IMO, including DLLS, dylibs , drivers and system software. But making things more readable can only be a good thing. On 14/9/06 17:49, "Björn Eiríksson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Charles Yeomans wrote: >> So-called "religious" objections aren't necessarily unreasonable. I'd >> rather not see the language become overly cluttered with an >> ever-increasing list of special constructions and syntax. >> >> Charles Yeomans > That is why it should be "Cleaned", Len ??? How much sense does that > make ? Len comes from the days when compiler makers had to have things > short. > > Should be just lenght = myString.Length > > How do you reason to the newbie why he has to look for a Keyword called > "Len" ? > > There are endless cases like this that should be cleaned up in > REALbasic. We dont live in the past where Keywords had to be as short as > possible. > > Björn > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: > <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> > > Search the archives of this list here: > <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html> > _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
