Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
..and there should be more changes in future as the Macromedia now is owned by Adobe... V,- ---Original Message--- From: Judy Perry Date: 07/16/06 07:58:32 To: Richmond Mathewson; How to use Revolution Subject: Re: Dependence on Programming Experts Richmond, Given the early policy of Macromedia requiring a Made with Macromedia or some such thing splash screen, I suspect it's not all that difficult... (to estimate the number of deployed products made with Director). As you may know, I tend to agree that some of the people exposed to it (such as folks in IDT degree programs) absolutely did not love it and, from my conversations with a few there and there from various places, didn't ever voluntarily use it again, certainly even I would have to agree that its usage was widespread. Judy On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Richmond Mathewson wrote: 2. Surely what measures a programming language's 'success' is not how many copies of the editing suite are sold, but how many programs (stacks?) are produced and how many of those end-products are sold, where they are deployed, and so forth. AND that is impossible to gauge. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Scott,
Respectfully ('cuz I did buy your guage thingy, which I love, btw, and
would have bought the audio library thingy too if I hadn't been blindsided
by my financial 'bookings in Monterey-Mexico' problem):
Did you read the rest of my post?
(1) Multiple ways of doing things confuse newcomers. If you've ever
learned a second (or third or...) language, you may see my point. Heck, I
even see this in trying to teach a brief fly-by in UI design with my CS
students. They end up liking the 3 quick rules by Mullet Sano... NOT
because they like reading the artsy-whatever stuff referenced, but because
they present three simple, reasonably comprehensible, RULES that don't
involve thinking about, well, artsy things. Rules-based. Fewer than a
half-dozen ways to do things tolerably well. And that half-dozen pretty
much covers the spectrum of UI design as opposed to three or four or...
different ways of doing ANY ONE THING.
(2) Especially with respect to the history of Lingo, multiple ways of
doing things, when they include more concise (read: obtuse) ways of
doing, virtually guarantee that pretty much every single reference on the
subject will reference FIRST the obtuse way (if not ONLY the obtuse way).
Pick up just about any book on Lingo or Director and estimate how many
references are for dot.syntax versus verbose Lingo. Better still, take a
look at a good half-dozen or so to see where these options lead, and,
worse, the ignominous end of the standard they are optioning.
It's not that I am a completely retarded idiot and cannot understand x =
5, but I have read the multiple writings on the wall with respect to
options that ultimately aren't and overtake the standard/verbose ways
of doing things.
If I wanted to learn C, I just would. But I don't.
Judy
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Scott Rossi wrote:
Recently, Judy Perry wrote:
Because it makes it harder to learn. Like English. I don't know what
that has to do with 'the establishment,' but it just makes things harder
to learn.
I respectfully disagree. As Richard G has repeated several times already,
using an alternate assignment is an *option*, just like using abbreviated
object names (btn, cd, grp). As an option, it doesn't preclude using the
current syntax. Search the list archives and you will repeatedly find the
phrase there are multiple ways of accomplishing what you want... Perhaps
you find this confusing but I find this to be one of Rev's strengths.
You can script 'put 5 into x' and be done with it or you can do the
shorthand version and script 'x = 5'.
For me, this seems pretty reasonable and desirable.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
But it's dead now, right? Yes, like Hypercard, but, And, yes, widely adopted (but as an xtalk? not hardly as it ended up)... but, and from my example (undoctored by me) only 1 or 2 persons out of 22 chose it/found it embraceable? Not great odds. Do you dispute that its verbose heritage had been veritably trumped? And, of course, you can drop the expert out of my opinion; feel free to leave it in your own. Judy On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Troy Rollins wrote: On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:23 AM, Judy Perry wrote: And, again, it's not that I don't get x = 5 (or whatever). But pretty soon we'll be looking at the most modern version of Lingo and it's not pretty. Or learnable by normal humans. The fact that Lingo is probably the most successful xtalk in history would seem to conflict with your expert opinion. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On 7/15/06 1:28 AM, Judy Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Judy, I agree with both you and Scott. (How? You might say?) You're both right (IMHO) so long as there are qualifiers: (1) Multiple ways of doing things confuse newcomers. I agree with you, so long as the multiple ways are *equally promoted*; which luckily for us, this is not the case. There is always one version of a token that is predominantly promoted in the Transcript dictionary, with other variations taking a back seat. Sometimes over time one overtakes the other and becomes the one that is promoted, but usually it has to do with what might be considered a natural migration of the language. Consider the directory and the defaultFolder. I've been around long enough with both MC and Rev (9 years or so) to have seen the original token directory replaced with defaultFolder. Why? Because originally MetaCard came from Unix, then to Windows, and ultimately to Mac. In Unix-land, the term directory was the common term to attribute to that structure; later, as Windows 95 and the Macintosh UI continued to call them folders, it made sense to add defaultFolder as a synonym to directory. And in doing so, what used to be promoted as the primary term (directory) eventually was replaced with defaultFolder as the promoted term. If both terms had been equally promoted it certainly would cause confusion for newcomers. Certain tokens also have a (IMHO) goofy syntax, such as using playLoudness instead of what would be more understandable as audioVolume. If audioVolume were added as an alternative, I'm sure it would swap places with playLoudness and be promoted as the primary term because it is more understandable. Adding an alternative token (or set of tokens) does not in and of itself make things confusing to newcomers (IMHO), so long as only one of the tokens is used consistently in Rev documentation and is promoted as the token that *should* be used. (2) Especially with respect to the history of Lingo, multiple ways of doing things, when they include more concise (read: obtuse) ways of doing, virtually guarantee that pretty much every single reference on the subject will reference FIRST the obtuse way (if not ONLY the obtuse way). In the case of Lingo, you're right (so long as you consider xTalk syntax less obtuse than dot syntax); but this was Macromedia's decision - they felt that it was more important to migrate the language towards a Javascript-like DOM, and so they promoted what they considered to be the better version of the terms (dot syntax) which people coming from a Javascript environment would be comfortable with. They apparently considered the verbosity of xTalk to be not as attractive as dot syntax. But that was *their* decision. And whether or not you or I agree with it, as long as RunRev sticks with the verbose approach as the primary promoted approach, I don't think that have alternative implementations will have them end up the way Lingo did. It's not that I am a completely retarded idiot and cannot understand x = 5, but I have read the multiple writings on the wall with respect to options that ultimately aren't and overtake the standard/verbose ways of doing things. And if RunRev added stuff that was more concise (like x=5) and decided that this was the preferred method instead of the verbose one, you (and many of us) would have every right to whack 'em on the nose with a newspaper. :-) If I wanted to learn C, I just would. But I don't. Believe me, I don't want to learn C either, but adding an option of x=5 instead of put 5 into x doesn't turn Rev into C... but of course you already know that. ;-) In any event, as I mentioned before, this discussion is moot as RunRev doesn't monitor the list for suggestions, so if there's an enhancement request for this in Bugzilla, we should all feel free to post our opinions there so that when and if RunRev *does* choose to look at this, they will know how we all feel. Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: Dependence on Programming Experts
Hi Lynn, I am named in this thread! I hope it was clear that I wasn't attributing my remark, the way for Runtime Revolution to differentiate itself from competitors and attract developers from other platforms is to adopt the syntax of its most successful competitors. to you, but rather suggesting that that is the message those who advocate incorporating optional syntax from other development platforms are sending to Revolution marketing staff. I continue to harp on this subject because I would like to spare the Revolution community the two most unpleasant experiences in my professional career: * Working with software totally lacking in internal consistency, and * Working with syntax that had different meanings depending on how it was positioned or formatted. Both came in one user-hostile package known as Berkeley Unix C running under the Bourne (sp?) shell. The Bourne shell was a Unix command line interface. The terminology and command modifiers used by the various shell commands were so totally inconsistent I can only conclude that Bourne shell was a collection of UC Berkeley CS class projects, each written without reference to the others. The construct is command /modifier/ modifier/, where modifier is a single letter [eg: command/A/B/C], optionally extended by =. * Some pairs of commands used the same modifier (eg. /A) to mean something different in the two commands * Some pairs of commands used different modifiers (eg: /A and /B) to mean the same thing. How much friendlier the Bourne shell would have been if each modifier had a single meaning, and a single modifier was used for a specific purpose! And dear old C: the high-level equivalent of assembler language. My biggest problem in learning and working with C was that there were multiple variations of the same statement that were all syntactically correct but had quite different meanings, often based on the presence or absence of parentheses or a terminating semicolon (eg: statement and statement; had two entirely different meanings). I've never had the debugging nightmares in any other language as I did in C, and all too often it had to do with a syntactically correct statement with the wrong punctuation. So when people suggest that x=5 and (x=5) should be supported by Revolution, but with entirely different meanings, it raises two red flags for me: * The constructs are too similar to designate radically different things, and * The use of x=5 to mean put 5 into x is completely inconsistent with the Xtalk syntax upon which Revolution is built. But thanks to Brian Yennie, the point is moot. Now any Rev developer who wants to script x=5 can do so with no effect on the rest of us. So while I have your attention, Lynn, let me suggest that an implementation of an enhanced version of Brian's script at the Script Editor level by RRLtd would empower every Rev developer with the capability of defining a personal syntax, so long as she can script a translation into legal Revolution (I would prefer the sound of Transcript here). And if Brian or anyone else wants to Bugzillia this request, it's got 5 votes from moi. Rob Cozens CCW, Serendipity Software Company And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three; Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee. from The Triple Foole by John Donne (1572-1631) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: Dependence on Programming Experts
Moi: if Brian or anyone else wants to Bugzillia this request, it's got 5 votes from moi. I decided to BZ this myself, thus allowing me to define the request myself'. :-} I have requested the following enhancement to the Script Editor: On July 13th, Brian Yennie posted RE: Dependence on Programming Experts a returnInField script that converts the string x = [whatever] to put [whatever] into x. This suggests a basic script line translation function that enables each developer to create personal scripting syntax and/or keyboard shorthand that can be converted to existing Revolution syntax by script BEFORE compilation by the Script Editor. My initial concept for this is a scrolling field maintained from by the SE, where the developer can store a script line filter to translate his/her syntax/ shorthand to legal Revolution syntax. Another possibility is a stack-specific script line filter where one could insert a shorthand for variable names that would extend to longer, more descriptive names in the stored script. You can vote for this at http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=3740. Thanks again to Brian for showing the way. Rob Cozens CCW, Serendipity Software Company And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three; Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee. from The Triple Foole by John Donne (1572-1631) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Rob, Thanks for the attribution here. It's probably worth noting that if this isn't something that makes headway with RunRev, there are definitely possibilities for a community authored plugin. Then, if that caught on, RunRev might be inclined to just bundle the plugin with the IDE (or at worst anyone could grab it from RevOnline). I'd be happy to contribute a few more hours to the cause if others want to help refine the idea. - Brian Thanks again to Brian for showing the way. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Richmond, Given the early policy of Macromedia requiring a Made with Macromedia or some such thing splash screen, I suspect it's not all that difficult... (to estimate the number of deployed products made with Director). As you may know, I tend to agree that some of the people exposed to it (such as folks in IDT degree programs) absolutely did not love it and, from my conversations with a few there and there from various places, didn't ever voluntarily use it again, certainly even I would have to agree that its usage was widespread. Judy On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Richmond Mathewson wrote: 2. Surely what measures a programming language's 'success' is not how many copies of the editing suite are sold, but how many programs (stacks?) are produced and how many of those end-products are sold, where they are deployed, and so forth. AND that is impossible to gauge. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Recently, Judy Perry wrote: And supporting multiple assignment options, when other languages only support one, is worse than the establishment how?... Because it makes it harder to learn. Like English. I don't know what that has to do with 'the establishment,' but it just makes things harder to learn. I respectfully disagree. As Richard G has repeated several times already, using an alternate assignment is an *option*, just like using abbreviated object names (btn, cd, grp). As an option, it doesn't preclude using the current syntax. Search the list archives and you will repeatedly find the phrase there are multiple ways of accomplishing what you want... Perhaps you find this confusing but I find this to be one of Rev's strengths. You can script 'put 5 into x' and be done with it or you can do the shorthand version and script 'x = 5'. For me, this seems pretty reasonable and desirable. Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director Tactile Media, Multimedia Design - E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: http://www.tactilemedia.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Kay C Lan wrote: On 7/14/06, Alex Tweedly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there was any context where either could appear, there would be an ambiguity - but there isn't. So assuming the new syntax was adopted: x = 4 -- I assume x is 4 Yes, x has the value 4 when the statement is complete. (x = 5) -- I assume x is now 5 Nope - This would give a compile error, just like it does today. It says: Handler: bad command Object: button Line: (x=5) Hint: ( It says this because you cannot use an expression alone where a statement is expected, because doing so would be pointless. The value of the expression has nowhere to go - so it's a useless statement, and not allowed. BTW - do not test this in the one-line message box. The one-line message box has the special case that if it sees an expression, it will add a put in front of it to output the value. That's a convenience special to the one-line msgbox. I have to admit this is one piece of behaviour that might need to change if this syntax were introduced. set the customBoolenProp of stack myStack to (x = 4) -- it would put false Yes, it would put false into the property set the customNumericProp of stack myStack to (x = 6) -- it would put 6 into x and into the customProp Nope. It would put false into the property, just like it does today. The phrase x=6 is there as part of an expression, and so is calculated as part of that expression - has nothing to do with an assignment to x. If I got use to 'x = 4' being a valid var assignment, then I would assume that as with other Rev statements, placing it in brackets would make it just as valid but calculated earlier, to have it suddenly not have it work as expected is some cases (although I really can't see myself using the above) would cause confusion. Nope. Today you can put a part of an expression into brackets to force the relative order of the clauses of the expression; you cannot put a complete statement into brackets - it gives a compile error. So putting x=4 into brackets as a statement would produce a compile error - just like you get today from the statement (put 2 into x) Although you are probably right in that it may not break current code, I see that it could create confusion, or at least have a bunch of 'extra' rules associated with it. I also assume that this is why languages that use 'x = 6' use 'x == 6', because determining the meaning by context seems a little roundabout when you can use syntax. There are various reasons why other languages do that. In Algol, I believe it was a deliberate choice for academic reasons (designed by mathematicians). (there may also be cases of ambiguity, but it's been tooo long ) Pascal followed it (I think). FORTRAN had a single pass, non-recursive, non-backtracking parser, so needed to did it the very easy way :-) (funny - no-one's even suggested Transcript use x .eq. 4 for equality comparisons :-) In C, there are places where the syntax allows *either* a statement *or* an expression (e.g. in the sub-clauses of the for statement), so you need to use different operators to distinguish the two cases Actually, in C the assignment operator is just another operator - it 'returns' the result of the operation - so it can be mixed freely within expressions (e.g. x = 4 + (y=4) put 8 into x !!) And, I think, some languages just do it because their designers/users are used to having different operators, so they did the same. On the other hand, there are a variety of languages (Babbage !?, many variants of Basic) which don't have those issues, so simply allow a single = for assignment or for equality comparison. Transcript is a straightforward language (though very extensive), so there is no difficulty distinguishing the two cases. -- Alex Tweedly http://www.tweedly.net -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.0/388 - Release Date: 13/07/2006 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
on July 14, 2006 Alex Tweedly wrote: On the other hand, there are a variety of languages (Babbage !?, many variants of Basic) which don't have those issues, so simply allow a single = for assignment or for equality comparison. Alex, I know you probably already know this, but the original Basic was like transcript (I know I'm set in my ways :-)) in that you had to say: Let x = 5 (It made it easier to parse) Have fun, Glenn -- Glenn E. Fisher University of Houston - Retired 22402 Diane Dr. Spring, Tx 77373 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.uh.edu/~fisher http://home.houston.rr.com/thegefishers/ http://homepage.mac.com/gefisher ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On 7/13/06 11:11 PM, Brian Yennie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now edit any script and enter x=5 or some other simple assignment on a line by itself. Hit return. Voila, translation to verbose =)! That's neat, Brian! Cool stuff! Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Good for you Brian, For fun, try inserting this as a front script: I played a little yesterday with a put put stack with a button that would get the script of a selected object, change each occurrence of x = something to put something into x. The handler worked fine; but the Script Editor wouldn't close a script containing x = something...unless it was in parentheses. Your solution allows any developer to implement any short hand notation that can be converted to Revolution syntax. So vive Brian for a method that lets every developer use notation with which she is comfortable without bastardizing Revolution's xTalk. Truly better than what the establishment is doing, me thinks. Kudos! Rob Cozens, CCW Serendipity Software Company Vive R Revolution! ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Brian, this is definitely something usable! Many other programming languages support alternative syntaxes through inlining the code without tackling with the engine in any way. Such inline capabilities are ensured solely by external modules. E.g. one can inline C or ASM into a Perl program so that it even gets compiled and executed when high speed processing is needed. Same can be said about other languages that can be inlined. If you go to www.cpan.org then you will face the amount of modules implementing diverse functionality in Perl. There are 401 inline modules alone (http://search.cpan.org/search?query=inlinemode=all) ! So in Perl you just write use Inline C and start writing in C... I am not advocating Perl here, but this is something to grasp on as a good example of modularity and flexibility: 1) having open and searchable repository of Revolution modules like www.cpan org accessible by everyone, not just by owners of the product. 2) taking some time and creating externals for inlines and any other additional functionality to put there for public use With library this should be possible: start using stack MathLib x=field x y=field y z=x+y answer z; or automatically relate script variables with fields, so we could skip assignement of field values and write start using stack MathLib z=x+y answer z; while MathLib would take care about translating x, y and z to corresponding fields on the stack (field x, field y and field z) Now compare: the assembly mov ax, 5 mov bx, 7 add ax, bx and the transcript: put 5 into x put 7 into y add y to x So time ago this type of syntax lead to creation of high level languages that could understand z=x+y directly. No wonder the same discussion starts on this list from time to time ;-) Just 2 cents from Viktoras ---Original Message--- From: Brian Yennie Date: 07/14/06 07:12:07 To: How to use Revolution Subject: Re: Dependence on Programming Experts For fun, try inserting this as a front script: on returnInField get offset((field quotescriptquote of card quoterevscriptquote), the long name of the target) if (it = 1) then put word 2 of the selectedLine into lineNum put line (lineNum) of fld script of card revscript into prevLine if (token 2 of prevLine is =) then put (put(token 3 to -1 of prevLine)into(token 1 of prevLine)) into line (lineNum) of fld script of card revscript select empty send revFormatField lineNum,lineNum to card revscript select after line (lineNum) of fld script of card revscript end if end if pass returnInField end returnInField Now edit any script and enter x=5 or some other simple assignment on a line by itself. Hit return. Voila, translation to verbose =)! I'm sure there are various ways a plugin could use this sort of magic to allow customized syntax, without needing changes to the Rev engine. It would just become a script editor convenience. You could always trap script editing messages to even hide the conversion rather than converting it on the fly. - Brian ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Disregard this post: Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Disregard my previous post please. For some reason it took several hours to deliver it to the list. I thought it was lost and resent newer one... And now the lost one appeared... Disregard it... ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Hi All, As Judy noted, we all understand what is being proposed. What is less obvious is why it is being proposed. * Because it takes less keystrokes to type x=5 compared to put 5 into x? If so, I'm sure I can find many other examples of syntax from other languages that is less verbose than Revolution [now where is my old Code Warrior manual?]. Or perhaps I could makeup a new syntax, maybe using characters from the Greek alphabet, that is shorter still. Now there's a fun project: try to devise a syntax that is briefer and more succinct than C. And when we've done it and there is a briefer, more cryptic syntax for every verbose Revolution construct will the language be easier to learn and more productive to use? I think not. Has anyone supporting this on the basis of brevity stopped to consider the irony that one can script the same functionality in verbose Revolution in significantly fewer lines than it takes using succinct C? So you want the productivity (and maintainability) of Revolution AND the brevity of C? To quote Bob Seeger's Beautiful Looser, You just can't have it all. * Because the syntax is used in other popular programming languages? News flash to Lynn Fredricks: the way for Runtime Revolution to differentiate itself from competitors and attract developers from other platforms is to adopt the syntax of its most successful competitors. NOT! Why stop at x=5? How about everyone contributes his favorite syntax from another language and we bundle them all in the next release of Revolution? Got to be the power-programmer's ultimate platform, right? WRONG! * Because you like x=5 better than put 5 into x? Use Brian Yennie's script or write your own compiler, And thank you, Brian, for demonstrating that revolutionist thinking can find a way of doing things better than the establishing does it, Vive Revolution! Rob Cozens CCW, Serendipity Software Company And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three; Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee. from The Triple Foole by John Donne (1572-1631) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:23 AM, Judy Perry wrote: And, again, it's not that I don't get x = 5 (or whatever). But pretty soon we'll be looking at the most modern version of Lingo and it's not pretty. Or learnable by normal humans. The fact that Lingo is probably the most successful xtalk in history would seem to conflict with your expert opinion. -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 14, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Rob Cozens wrote: Has anyone supporting this on the basis of brevity stopped to consider the irony that one can script the same functionality in verbose Revolution in significantly fewer lines than it takes using succinct C? So you want the productivity (and maintainability) of Revolution AND the brevity of C? To quote Bob Seeger's Beautiful Looser, You just can't have it all. Lingo, the most successful xtalk of them all, does. And now, I'll leave this knitting group again, with this final statement. When something is not as popular as you think it should be, you look at what should be changed, not why it should stay the same. unsub for the last time -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On 14 Jul 2006, at 17:00, Troy Rollins wrote: On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:23 AM, Judy Perry wrote: And, again, it's not that I don't get x = 5 (or whatever). But pretty soon we'll be looking at the most modern version of Lingo and it's not pretty. Or learnable by normal humans. The fact that Lingo is probably the most successful xtalk in history would seem to conflict with your expert opinion. -- Troy As a Rev user who has been learning Director recently, I have to say that the hybrid nature of Lingo is an absolute pain for legibility after using a 'pure' xtalk such as Transcript. If it was all dot syntax it would be fine, if it was all xtalk it would be fine - but my brain does not cope well with both at once. Ian ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: Dependence on Programming Experts
* Because the syntax is used in other popular programming languages? News flash to Lynn Fredricks: the way for Runtime Revolution to differentiate itself from competitors and attract developers from other platforms is to adopt the syntax of its most successful competitors. NOT! Aha, I am named in this thread! Hi Rob, Im going to (soon) write something more at length about this on the forums but, there is a challenge in differentiating yourself from competitors - that could also result in exacerbating barriers to entry. A GREAT example of this is Director. Not so long ago (in Director years), Director added Javascript support. This was the Macromedia answer to the barrier to learning Lingo. Im not saying you can expect Javascript to show itself in Revolution. But this is one way a large market leader modified their strategy to lower the barrier of entry to bring on new developers. Developers who loved Lingo didn't have to change what they do. Backwards compatibility is in almost any case a plus. Lowering barriers to entry are a necessity no matter what you are selling. Without making any sort of specific commitment by saying so, it makes sense to me that adding features that lower barriers but do not impact backward compatibility is a good thing and worth pursuing. Best regards, Lynn Fredricks Worldwide Business Operations Runtime Revolution, Ltd ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
The biggest problem with syntactic shortcuts as options is that they bloat the interpreter/compiler and result in slower execution. It's inevitable. No single change of this type is going to be noticeable, but you start down that slippery slope and add a bunch of them and then people will start comlaining the app is too slow. On 7/12/06, John Vokey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A bit late in the debate (but I am at my cottage with at best primitive dial-up): -- ~~ Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author http://www.shafermedia.com Get my book, Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 12, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Joe Miller wrote: I have been fascinated by the discussion and was just a little surprised at the quantity and intensity of the objections to having equal as just an option. No crap! I just checked in on this thread, I hardly expected a response, much less the ensuing firestorm! IF (I post a stack that revolutionizes GUI building in Rev by importing Fireworks .htm) THEN I barely get a peep ELSE IF (I suggest x = 5) THEN All h-e-double-toothpicks breaks loose! END IF ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Dan, it is not exactly so. Modern interpreters no longer interpret the code, they first translate it to bytecode which is executed by the engine. Although I do not know is this a case with Revolution engine, but adding just an option to a translator makes no impact on execution of the bytecode. At least this is the way Perl works, and it supports many ways of everything. When describing performance of Runtime Rev engine then it is compared as equal to Perl by the Runrev experts themselves. So there should not be any big losses due to alternative syntaxes. But as Bjornke mentioned engine already has a support for =. Evidently I have played too little with it, but I am happy with this if it works with my mathematical formulas :-). best! Viktoras ---Original Message--- From: Dan Shafer Date: 07/13/06 10:18:30 To: How to use Revolution Subject: Re: Dependence on Programming Experts The biggest problem with syntactic shortcuts as options is that they bloat the interpreter/compiler and result in slower execution. It's inevitable. No single change of this type is going to be noticeable, but you start down that slippery slope and add a bunch of them and then people will start comlaining the app is too slow. On 7/12/06, John Vokey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A bit late in the debate (but I am at my cottage with at best primitive dial-up): -- ~~ Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author http://www.shafermedia.com Get my book, Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Not so surprising (to me). One post offers the chance for enhanced productivity. The other offers a chance for people to grandstand their vast knowledge of programming theory. :) Josh Mellicker wrote: IF (I post a stack that revolutionizes GUI building in Rev by importing Fireworks .htm) THEN I barely get a peep ELSE IF (I suggest x = 5) THEN All h-e-double-toothpicks breaks loose! END IF p.s.: Can I convince you to do the same magic with Illustrator? :) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Richard, et al: The proposed assignment OPTION is consistent with several dozen languages, many of which are still actively growing a strong rate, as opposed to Pascal which is the only one which uses Pascal-style assignment and is in rapid decline today. The proposed OPTION would eliminate my current OPTION to replace code like: if recordNumber = 1 then set the disabled of button Previous Record to false else set the disabled of button Previous Record to true if recordNumber = recordCount then set the disabled of button Next Record to false else set the disabled of button Next Record to true with set the disabled of button Previous Record to (recordNumber = 1) set the disabled of button Next Record to (recordNumber = recordCount) and break every script where I use this structure. I can't believe you find the need for this OPTION so great that you would advocate breaking existing syntax. Rob Cozens CCW, Serendipity Software Company And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three; Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee. from The Triple Foole by John Donne (1572-1631) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Moi: if recordNumber = 1 then set the disabled of button Previous Record to false else set the disabled of button Previous Record to true Should be: if recordNumber = 1 then set the disabled of button Previous Record to true else set the disabled of button Previous Record to false But that wasn't my main point. In my reply to Josh, I noted his request would break existing syntax. IMO that should end the discussion. Rob Cozens CCW, Serendipity Software Company And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three; Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee. from The Triple Foole by John Donne (1572-1631) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 13, 2006, at 3:18 AM, Dan Shafer wrote: The biggest problem with syntactic shortcuts as options is that they bloat the interpreter/compiler and result in slower execution. It's inevitable. No single change of this type is going to be noticeable, but you start down that slippery slope and add a bunch of them and then people will start comlaining the app is too slow. The stuff we are talking about already exists in the engine. Otherwise I'd challenge this on technical grounds. In the tests I've done, Revolution is no faster than Director (which has all the shortcuts you can imagine and then some. Think bytecode.) Still, I'm done on the topic. I've got code to write in the form of short stories. Ya'll dun yer jobs. Good shootin'. -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Rob Cozens wrote: Moi: if recordNumber = 1 then set the disabled of button Previous Record to false else set the disabled of button Previous Record to true Should be: if recordNumber = 1 then set the disabled of button Previous Record to true else set the disabled of button Previous Record to false But that wasn't my main point. In my reply to Josh, I noted his request would break existing syntax. IMO that should end the discussion. (I may have got lost in the length of this thread, but ...) I don't see what would break existing syntax. The proposal I remember is to allow container = expression anywhere a statement is allowed - i.e. as a statement on a (logical) line, or following an IF expr THEN ... Your example was set the disabled of button Previous Record to (recordNumber = 1) i.e. SET container TO expression which wouldn't look much like the new (optional) syntax to any parser I can think of. The fact that recordnumber = 1 *could* be an expression, or *could* be a statement shouldn't be a problem - the context will *always* tell you which it is; currently Transcript doesn't allow expressions to be written where a statement is required, so there is no ambiguity. The only somewhat odd, almost ambiguous, case would be x = y = 5 which could mean the same as put (y=5) into x or *could*, if RR chose, mean the same as x=5; y=5 (i.e. as it does in other languages). But that's an ambiguity in a newly-allowed case, and so can be resolved and documented from the start. If there is any case that you can find that is ambiguous to a standard recursive descent parser, please tell us. (I assume RR uses a parser that is at least as capable as a trad recursive descent one - probably it's more capable). FWIW (i.e. nothing :-), I would love to have the option of writing x=1 instead of put 1 into x. There isn't a day, barely an hour, that goes by when I'm working in Rev that I don't trip over that. I keep thinking I'll get over it, but I think I just passed the two-year mark as a Rev user, so I have to admit I'm not going to get used to it as long as I sometimes use other languages as well. If I could ever become solely a Rev coder I might have a chance - but as long as the range of problems I am interested in is so wide that Rev isn't the best tool for them all, that's not going to happen. BTW - (with wicked grin on face) - if we did convince RR to allow x = 1 should we also ask for x += 1# I'd say yes and how about x++# I'd say no, let's retain some modicum of good taste :-) -- Alex Tweedly http://www.tweedly.net -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/387 - Release Date: 12/07/2006 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Hi Aex, I don't see what would break existing syntax. The example I gave, which demonstrates techniques in many of my existing stacks. The proposal I remember is to allow container = expression anywhere a statement is allowed - i.e. as a statement on a (logical) line, or following an IF expr THEN ... Your example was set the disabled of button Previous Record to (recordNumber = 1) i.e. SET container TO expression No: SET property TO expression which wouldn't look much like the new (optional) syntax to any parser I can think of. It isn't new: it's from SDB logic that's been working for me since RR v2 The fact that recordnumber = 1 *could* be an expression, or *could* be a statement shouldn't be a problem - the context will *always* tell you which it is; currently Transcript doesn't allow expressions to be written where a statement is required, Trans er, Revolution evaluates (recordNumber = 1) as a bolean expression evaluated as true or false. Rob Cozens CCW, Serendipity Software Company And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three; Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee. from The Triple Foole by John Donne (1572-1631) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Alex Moi: I don't see what would break existing syntax. The example I gave, which demonstrates techniques in many of my existing stacks. Sorry,now I've lost focus. The proposal to have the Rev engine interpret x=5 to mean put 5 into x instead of its current interpertation, does x equal 5? would break existing syntax. Rob Cozens CCW, Serendipity Software Company And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three; Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee. from The Triple Foole by John Donne (1572-1631) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Rob, I think the point being made is that no, it wouldn't, and it also would not break any of your SDB code. Your example of: set the disabled of button Previous Record to (recordNumber = 1) Would still work, because the script parser/compiler could easily determine that (recordNumber = 1) is an expression, and use of the = operator in an expression would still evaluate to true / false. Allowing a single line to read: x = 5 In no way implies that any code would necessarily be broken anywhere else. It would JUST allow that statement. Of course an overhaul of the whole use of = could affect tons of code, but it's not necessary in order to just support the single-line assignment construct. Sorry,now I've lost focus. The proposal to have the Rev engine interpret x=5 to mean put 5 into x instead of its current interpertation, does x equal 5? would break existing syntax. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Okay, so if we allow x = 1 should we also allow x is 1 I don't care, I just love a good controversy. ;-) Bob Sneidar IT Manager Logos Management Calvary Chapel CM On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW - (with wicked grin on face) - if we did convince RR to allow x = 1 should we also ask for x += 1# I'd say yes and how about x++# I'd say no, let's retain some modicum of good taste :-) -- ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Cousin Richard, The proposed assignment OPTION is consistent with several dozen languages, many of which are still actively growing a strong rate, The end of a revolution begins when leading revolutionists seek to do things like the establishment does instead of better than the establishment does. Sigh! :-( Cousin Rob ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Rob Cozens wrote: Alex Moi: I don't see what would break existing syntax. The example I gave, which demonstrates techniques in many of my existing stacks. Sorry,now I've lost focus. Yeah, it's been a long thread :-) Not helped by me saying container when I should have said property - sorry about that. The proposal to have the Rev engine interpret x=5 to mean put 5 into x instead of its current interpertation, does x equal 5? would break existing syntax. No, it wouldn't. Current syntax (such as your example from SDB) uses an 'equality' expression in the context where an expression is required. The (proposed) syntax uses a (perhaps identical set of characters) as a statement where a statement is required. There is no existing case (AFAIK) where *either* a boolean expression and a statement could appear, and hence there is no ambiguous case - anywhere that set of characters can appear can be *at most* one of an expression or a statement.. If there was any context where either could appear, there would be an ambiguity - but there isn't. -- Alex Tweedly http://www.tweedly.net -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/387 - Release Date: 12/07/2006 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Robert Sneidar wrote: Okay, so if we allow x = 1 should we also allow x is 1 IMO, 'we' already allow x is 1 because is implies an equality test. The equivalent English-like form of an assignment would be something like x becomes 1 and I'd really rather we didn't do that :-) I don't care, I just love a good controversy. ;-) That's both the best and the worst aspect of this list :-) :-) I tried to stay out of this discussion - I really, really did - but failed in the end. -- Alex Tweedly http://www.tweedly.net -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/387 - Release Date: 12/07/2006 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Recently, Rob Cozens wrote: The proposed assignment OPTION is consistent with several dozen languages, many of which are still actively growing a strong rate, The end of a revolution begins when leading revolutionists seek to do things like the establishment does instead of better than the establishment does. And supporting multiple assignment options, when other languages only support one, is worse than the establishment how?... Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director Tactile Media, Multimedia Design - E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: http://www.tactilemedia.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 13, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Rob Cozens wrote: The end of a revolution begins when leading revolutionists seek to do things like the establishment does instead of better than the establishment does. This makes so much sense. So why are you doing it? ;-) -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Rob Cozens wrote: The proposed assignment OPTION is consistent with several dozen languages, many of which are still actively growing a strong rate, as opposed to Pascal which is the only one which uses Pascal-style assignment and is in rapid decline today. The proposed OPTION would eliminate my current OPTION to replace code like: if recordNumber = 1 then set the disabled of button Previous Record to false else set the disabled of button Previous Record to true if recordNumber = recordCount then set the disabled of button Next Record to false else set the disabled of button Next Record to true with set the disabled of button Previous Record to (recordNumber = 1) set the disabled of button Next Record to (recordNumber = recordCount) and break every script where I use this structure. I can't believe you find the need for this OPTION so great that you would advocate breaking existing syntax. Not at all. I've tried (though apparently failed) to express that I changed my opinion over the years to come to favor more consistent support for = as an assignment operator based on two factors: - It needn't break any existing syntax - It already exists in Transcript This second point is critical to this discussion, yet somehow overlooked in half the posts here. What's on the table is not to make anything new, but merely to make something that's already in place more consistent. Statements begin with a command, and are parsed according to what's expected based on that command. Statements beginning with if, set, or really anything that isn't a variable name or type declaration (such as those in the example above) would not be affected by making support for = as an assignment operator more consistently supported. Currently when the command is constant then = can be used as an assignment operator. But currently this only works in a script-local context, and all other variable types and contexts are arbitrarily excluded from using this assignment operator. The current partial implementation introduces a sometimes rule into the language, and such rules make learning unnecessarily difficult. The proposal at hand would make the language simpler and more consistent, and not break any existing code, by simply allowing assignment when the first word of a statement is a variable name, and removing the arbitrary restriction of its usage to script-locals only. To the best of my knowledge, there is currently no context other than the proposed in which a statement can begin with a variable name, thus no conflict with existing usage. If we find an exception to that I'm sure we could just as easily come up with a rule for the compiler to account for it. After all, this isn't exactly splitting the atom; dozens of languages have allowed this assignment operator for many years, even languages that also use that token for comparison, so it's not like it really requires much in the way of invention. Some here may be glad to hear this will be my last post on this subject. I haven't said much new since my first post in this thread, and I trust I've restated things enough since then that anything I could hope to contribute is about as clear as I can make it. If anything more needs to be said I'll leave that to better writers -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 13, 2006, at 6:47 AM, Bill Marriott wrote: Josh Mellicker wrote: IF (I post a stack that revolutionizes GUI building in Rev by importing Fireworks .htm) THEN p.s.: Can I convince you to do the same magic with Illustrator? :) I haven't used Illustrator for years and so cannot experiment :( But theoretically it is possible, if Illustrator will output sliced graphics and a pure .css file with absolute positioning. Just not sure if it does that. (Can I convince you to switch to Fireworks? ;-) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On 7/14/06, Alex Tweedly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there was any context where either could appear, there would be an ambiguity - but there isn't. So assuming the new syntax was adopted: x = 4 -- I assume x is 4 (x = 5) -- I assume x is now 5 set the customBoolenProp of stack myStack to (x = 4) -- it would put false set the customNumericProp of stack myStack to (x = 6) -- it would put 6 into x and into the customProp If I got use to 'x = 4' being a valid var assignment, then I would assume that as with other Rev statements, placing it in brackets would make it just as valid but calculated earlier, to have it suddenly not have it work as expected is some cases (although I really can't see myself using the above) would cause confusion. Although you are probably right in that it may not break current code, I see that it could create confusion, or at least have a bunch of 'extra' rules associated with it. I also assume that this is why languages that use 'x = 6' use 'x == 6', because determining the meaning by context seems a little roundabout when you can use syntax. My 2 clams worth ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
For fun, try inserting this as a front script: on returnInField get offset((field quotescriptquote of card quoterevscriptquote), the long name of the target) if (it = 1) then put word 2 of the selectedLine into lineNum put line (lineNum) of fld script of card revscript into prevLine if (token 2 of prevLine is =) then put (put(token 3 to -1 of prevLine)into(token 1 of prevLine)) into line (lineNum) of fld script of card revscript select empty send revFormatField lineNum,lineNum to card revscript select after line (lineNum) of fld script of card revscript end if end if pass returnInField end returnInField Now edit any script and enter x=5 or some other simple assignment on a line by itself. Hit return. Voila, translation to verbose =)! I'm sure there are various ways a plugin could use this sort of magic to allow customized syntax, without needing changes to the Rev engine. It would just become a script editor convenience. You could always trap script editing messages to even hide the conversion rather than converting it on the fly. - Brian ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Because it makes it harder to learn. Like English. I don't know what that has to do with 'the establishment,' but it just makes things harder to learn. It's not that I don't understand how much easier it would make things for folks familiar with other languages. I do. BUT... (1) It still makes the language harder to learn; (2) With Lingo history as an example, positively THE WORST option becomes defacto learning standard'; (3) It opens the Pandora's Box to incorporating, mish-mash style, EVERY weird little favored syntactic element from EVERY other language which, well, see (1) above. (4) IF (some) people want to use the least intuitive, SOOO NOT natural-language-like syntaxes on the planet, by all means, please use them IN THOSE OTHER LANGUAGES! And, again, it's not that I don't get x = 5 (or whatever). But pretty soon we'll be looking at the most modern version of Lingo and it's not pretty. Or learnable by normal humans. Judy On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Scott Rossi wrote: And supporting multiple assignment options, when other languages only support one, is worse than the establishment how?... ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Dan, Do you have a citation for this/these?? Certainly, the articles by/on Decker I've read. I also read a bunch on other (Delphi-like maybe? I could dig up citations if anyone's interested) environments... black box vs. transparent box vs. zipper... etc. ... I now cannot recall the name of the fellow who is the biggie in novice programming psychology for ACM, but have read his stuff as well. It seems to be a bit of an issue in CS-education: apparently, there was a semi-recent decision made to switch from a teaching learning-friendly language (Pascal) to a real-world get-me-a job langauge (C++) with respect to CSAB accreditation-speak. I'm not trying to put you on the spot; merely, I do try to stay current with the research on this issue and apparently missed this/these. I'll definitely look up the book you've referenced. Thanks, Judy On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Dan Shafer wrote: Judy I thnk the research is a tad mixed on the subject. I remember a wonderful book back in the mid- to late 80's called A Small Matter of Programming by Bonnie Nardi, an extremely bright researcher in end-user programming. Excel macros -- which I'd argue are among the most obtuse languages on the programming planet -- rate very high with inventive user programmers despite their complete lack of English-like syntax or rationale. I thnk your point in general is well taken but the exceptoins are mind-blowing. On 7/9/06, Judy Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, yet, the literature seems clear that the best languages for learning programming are those which are the simplest and employ natural-language where possible. Those employing magical black-boxes are the least desirable/effective from a 'learning to program' standpoint. What is nice about Rev and has always been nice about Hypercard was what some may well consider 'stooping to kindergarten'-level: enabling people to be minimally and comprehensibly successful with a minimal amount of time invested; and that such does indeed seem to encourage a further time investment. Judy On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Stephen Barncard wrote: Hey we program, and we use code. What's so technical about that? I don't think Rev has to stoop to kindergarten level either, nor strive to be the buddy of non-technicals. Programming with a good tool is by nature technical. At some point words have to be used to describe things, and these words already exist. I'd hate to have to use terms like put the white box in here and the other one over there ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution -- ~~ Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author http://www.shafermedia.com Get my book, Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
whatever the syntax of the programming language is it should at least alternatively be compatible with mathematical notations. That's why humans invented mathematical formulas - they go beyond limitations of human language. Many do programming to implement complex mathematical models. So if mathematical language they use needs to be translated into something else this requires additional efforts and may be a source of errors. In some languages x=x+1 is written like x++, but once you know it - this is no longer a problem. This simply means counter. In mathematics one frequently needs to write iterative functions, formulas that use their output to compute new value, which goes into the same formula as a variable again x(n+1)=x(n)+1 is this sort of formula. It would be nice to have a separate mathematical module for Rev Studio, that allows usage of purely mathematical constructions. All the best Viktoras ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Hi guys, Regarding programing languages, there's a fact that I've already mentioned a couple of times on this list (almost every time this syntax topic arises) : in the 80's some studies in psychology ergonomics have shown that newbies and experienced programers memorize algorithms in 2 different ways : - newbies tend to memorize algos in a specific language (usually the one used for writing the code) - experienced programers memorize the algo itself, out of any specific language... so, this is probably a clue to provide a programing language as close as possible to natural language for newbies, so that they can focus on the task of learning programing and not need bother getting used to a non-natural syntax at the same time... As an experienced programer (since 1978, having used dozens of languages), I must confess that assembler is my favorite language (for the code efficiency), but when it comes to building high-level apps, xTalk is my favorite for its readability... For the same reason, I'm not a big fan of js, and I hate PHP... Now, how do experienced mathematicians memorize complex math algos ? Perhaps the answer to that question will determine if a language close to math notation is suitable for them... There's a basic principle in ergonomics : adapt tools to human task, not the other way around... JB ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 11, 2006, at 10:02 PM, Chipp Walters wrote: The other issue is regarding maintenance and readability for OTHER programmers. If there's this arcane 'other' way of doing something, it may make it more difficult. But this is a case where the syntax exist with Rev NOW, but not within this context. It is REALLY at odds with itself when... local x = 5 // is legal, and perfectly normal x = 5 // is not, and is an unthinkable construction Not really at odds. Within the local statement, the equal holds always since only string or number can be on the right side. In the latter case, it would be an operator which can have any expression on the right. In terms of implementation, the former is fairly trivial but the latter would require quite a big change in the parser logic, me thinks. Robert ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Hi Robert, Just to note, the quoted text you attributed to me was not something which I said. I believe it was Troy. On 7/12/06, Robert Brenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 11, 2006, at 10:02 PM, Chipp Walters wrote: The other issue is regarding maintenance and readability for OTHER programmers. If there's this arcane 'other' way of doing something, it may make it more difficult. But this is a case where the syntax exist with Rev NOW, but not within this context. It is REALLY at odds with itself when... local x = 5 // is legal, and perfectly normal x = 5 // is not, and is an unthinkable construction Not really at odds. Within the local statement, the equal holds always since only string or number can be on the right side. In the latter case, it would be an operator which can have any expression on the right. In terms of implementation, the former is fairly trivial but the latter would require quite a big change in the parser logic, me thinks. Robert ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
I should have removed the attribution since these get confusing in multiple quotes and my email client is configured to not attributions. Case in point: if you look carefully, there was a in front of it, which means that yours was the text with , an earlier attribution (now one more should be added for each since they are quoted again). Hi Robert, Just to note, the quoted text you attributed to me was not something which I said. I believe it was Troy. On 7/12/06, Robert Brenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 11, 2006, at 10:02 PM, Chipp Walters wrote: The other issue is regarding maintenance and readability for OTHER programmers. If there's this arcane 'other' way of doing something, it may make it more difficult. But this is a case where the syntax exist with Rev NOW, but not within this context. It is REALLY at odds with itself when... local x = 5 // is legal, and perfectly normal x = 5 // is not, and is an unthinkable construction Not really at odds. Within the local statement, the equal holds always since only string or number can be on the right side. In the latter case, it would be an operator which can have any expression on the right. In terms of implementation, the former is fairly trivial but the latter would require quite a big change in the parser logic, me thinks. Robert ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Fair enough. I guess I'd say if they can do it, and it doesn't break any existing code or anything, and if enough people want it, then why not? I suppose one lingering objection might be that too many syntaxes might make it difficult for one person to read anothers code, but then there are probably already enough differences in peoples coding styles for such difficulties to arise, anyway. Best, Mark On 12 Jul 2006, at 02:29, Troy Rollins wrote: I understand the historical reasons, but the argument that it would mess anything up I just can't see. Like anything else, the purpose is within the context. You would no sooner put x = 5 on a line by itself for any reason other than assignment of value, than you would put true or false on lines by themselves. I don't see any opportunity for ambiguity of intention here. Director has had this syntax without problems for many years. x = 5 // assignment if x = 5 then // comparison I can't tell you how many times I've first written variable assignments this way in Revolution only to turn around and say oh yeah... PUT the key into the backpack...PUT 5 into x Yes. Revolution coding STILL seems to me like playing text adventure games from the 80s. ;-) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
But this is a case where the syntax exist with Rev NOW, but not within this context. It is REALLY at odds with itself when... local x = 5 // is legal, and perfectly normal x = 5 // is not, and is an unthinkable construction On Jul 12, 2006, at 5:25 AM, Robert Brenstein wrote: Not really at odds. Within the local statement, the equal holds always since only string or number can be on the right side. In the latter case, it would be an operator which can have any expression on the right. But it IS at odds, even though the = functionality is extremely limited in what it can do, because it works in certain instances but not others. In terms of implementation, the former is fairly trivial but the latter would require quite a big change in the parser logic, me thinks. Oh, I'll not argue that. I've come to accept that certain things won't be implemented due to limitations of engineering time. What I don't agree with is that having a more succinct syntax available would somehow harm the verbose version of the language. I also don't agree that x = 5 is somehow less readable or understandable than its more wordy counterpart. -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Hi Josh, have found Rev extremely intuitive except for one thing: I wish it would parse x = 5 (if not following an IF) the same as put 5 into x This would cause scripts using the current syntax [eg: put (x=5) into trueOrFalse] to fail. Rob Cozens CCW, Serendipity Software Company And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three; Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee. from The Triple Foole by John Donne (1572-1631) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Richard, et al: The key thing to remember with this proposed addition is that it's an ADDITION, and OPTION that one can CHOOSE to use if they like, or not if they don't. And if Pascal programmers want := does Rev support yet another OPTION. And if you want VB syntax, do we add yet another OPTION? A collection of the best syntax from multiple languages would not, IMO,make the best development platform. There needs to be some overall logic consistency: XTalk provides it. So my preferred OPTION is that people learn and use the syntax specific to the platform with which they are working. Rob Cozens CCW, Serendipity Software Company And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three; Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee. from The Triple Foole by John Donne (1572-1631) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Gday Sarah, I would like this for speed of scriptiing reasons, but not for logic reasons - if that makes sense. It would be much faster to type x = 5 than put 5 into x but less logical. Understand that the ultimate result of such quests for brevity is C syntax. Why not just buy a C compiler? Rob Cozens CCW, Serendipity Software Company And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three; Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee. from The Triple Foole by John Donne (1572-1631) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 12, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Rob Cozens wrote:
Understand that the ultimate result of such quests for brevity is C
syntax.
Not always. Lingo is still the best example of what I'm referring to.
It skips all the {} stuff. It behaves like an xtalk with more modern
and accepted syntax.
Why not just buy a C compiler?
I'll assume that to be rhetorical. The functionality of the
Revolution engine is what's attractive to me, not the syntax, which I
find verbosely obtuse. It has to be relearned every time I come back
to do a project in Rev.
I'm not complaining, and I don't ever expect to get x = 5
functionality, but I also don't agree that there is anything magical
about the verbose syntax. It's more like an obstacle that must be
overcome.
--
Troy
RPSystems, Ltd.
http://www.rpsystems.net
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Richmond- Tuesday, July 11, 2006, 11:23:24 AM, you wrote: What I do see, is that after 2 weeks, my maladjusted kid has, by managing to produce something that works (side-scrolling 2D game at the moment), gained a leevl of confidence that he managed to open his mouth to somebody other than Mummy and Teacher for possibly the first time in 10 years. Cool! Next step is to get that kid on the list so we can trade expertise... -- -Mark Wieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts - All Things to All Men
On Jul 12, 2006, at 12:30 PM, Richmond Mathewson wrote: So, if you (and you know who 'you' are) require all sorts of twiddly add-ons that will make xTalk (er, Transcript, er Revolution) more like your language of preference then why don't you lobby the makers of your language of choice so it becomes more object-based and so forth, rather than the other way round. This coming from the same person who quotes himself as saying this: Philosophical problems are confusions arising owing to the fluidity of meanings users attach to words and phrases. Mathewson, 2006 So I can accept the smug attitude with the knowledge of the source. Those of us who swapped over from all those cranky languages of the 70s and 80s to Hypercard know very well why we stick with RR. Some of us swapped for reasons other than the language, why is this incomprehensible to you? xtalk functionality and xtalk syntax are NOT the same thing. What is it that is so worthy of protecting about the language that it is worth alienating entire classes of users? e.g. telling them they should go elsewhere. Or, on a bigger picture, you might ask yourself what is it that makes you believe your own philosophy is more valuable than anyone else's? Seems I've backed my way into another standard use list ganking. Seems I'd forgotten the way this group is. I'll back my way out now, and attempt to keep it fresh in my memory. -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
I remember the first time I began learning Foxpro syntax. I came across x = 5 and thought What a stupid way of storing a value to a variable! Of course my initial objection was readability as I was trying to interpret someone elses code base. Now I am confronted with converting a LOT of Foxpro code which profusely uses the x = 5 syntax, into Revolution, and wish to high heaven this form was supported. One less thing to have to convert. Of course, I could wish ALL Foxpro syntax was supported by Revolution so NO code conversion was necessary on my part... HEY! What a great idea! When can I expect this update? ;-) I guess the point is, even I alone want conflicting things, depending on what is good for me at the moment. I love Revolution now precisely BECAUSE the syntax IS so readable. If I had to learn another C++ like language I would never go near it. Revolution appeals to a subset of programmers who want to produce viable custom apps quickly and economically. I don't think anyone would dream of producing Microsoft Office with it. I would rather see resources spent on things everyone agrees we need. Better table tools, easier database access, not gonna rehash those here. But the state I find Revolution in now is VERY usable. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel for what I want to do. With Filemaker, the tunnel kept caving in on me. With Foxpro, they boarded up the tunnel. With C++ the tunnel entrance is at the top of mount Everest. With Fourth Dimension you could see the light all right, but they wanted to charge me a fee for everyone I brought with me into the tunnel. With Revolution, I can get there from here, and then remember how I did it, and not pay every time I or someone else makes the trip. In other words, all the tools are there, and it's simple enough to go back and recode if I have to, and economical in the bargain. I can live with the syntax: put Kudos for runrev into mThisIsCool. -- :-) Bob Sneidar IT Manager Logos Management Calvary Chapel CM On Jul 12, 2006, at 7:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In terms of implementation, the former is fairly trivial but the latter would require quite a big change in the parser logic, me thinks. Oh, I'll not argue that. I've come to accept that certain things won't be implemented due to limitations of engineering time. What I don't agree with is that having a more succinct syntax available would somehow harm the verbose version of the language. I also don't agree that x = 5 is somehow less readable or understandable than its more wordy counterpart. -- Troy ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 12, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Robert Sneidar wrote: I can live with the syntax: put Kudos for runrev into mThisIsCool. -- :-) Me too. Obviously. I'm here, and have been since before Rev came on the market. I'm sure I was one of the first professional (now Enterprise) license holders. That doesn't mean that an optional syntax evolution would be a bad thing, since I know many developers who won't touch Rev due to the current syntax. I'm sorry if I appeared to threaten the sanctity of the verbosity, but Lingo has proven that these syntaxes as described can easily live side-by-side without harm, so I didn't think I was suggesting anything too drastic... in fact, I was originally just supporting the statement made by another user. -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Robert Sneidar wrote: Now I am confronted with converting a LOT of Foxpro code which profusely uses the x = 5 syntax, into Revolution, and wish to high heaven this form was supported. One less thing to have to convert. You could write a script to do it. This is a start: function translate pData put (.*) = (.*) into tRegEx repeat for each line l in pData if matchText(l,tRegEx,var1,var2) = true and word 1 of l if then put put var2 into var1 cr after tNewScript else put l cr after tNewScript end if end repeat return tNewScript end translate You may need to add other exceptions to the if test. I routinely write: if it = which shouldn't be translated, and I may have forgotten some other constructs too, but this may give you an idea. Pass the function a whole script and see what it sends back. It doesn't account for instances where there are no spaces around the =, so that would be the first thing to change. The above will no doubt be improved by someone with a one-line regex. ;) -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED] HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Judy.. Not at hand. The Nardi book was the one that leaped to mind. I may have some research notes lying around somewhere. If I can find anything interesting, I'll send it offlist. On 7/12/06, Judy Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan, Do you have a citation for this/these?? -- ~~ Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author http://www.shafermedia.com Get my book, Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Troy. I don't think you're being fair. I completely disagreed with your *point*; you turned that into a personal attack on me, suggesting that I have some sort of weird idea of what a language should support that is somehow at odds with everyone (else). You made a comment to Richmond in another instance of this thread about forgetting how this list is. It seems to me that at least in this case, you've contributed to that. What I disagreed with was your contention that verbose = arcane. That's all. I've even grudgingly agreed with your main thrust about an alternate syntax as long as it doesn't interfere with existing verbosity, which I find more readable. And to your point about not all code being written for community review, I don't disagree, but I would suggest that sometimes code that one writes in a terse and (to me) arcane language becomes unreadable to its programmer some time down the road. For example, to me, Perl code that is uncommented but otherwise well crafted (as judged by a Perl pro) is write-only code. I can pick up an xTalk script I wrote years ago and understand what's going on in part because the verbosity of the language makes it to some extent (and clearly not completely) self-documenting. The same is true of my true favorite language, Smalltalk, which is *truly* verbose. Maybe it's just because I'm a writer first and a software developer second that I prefer these verbose languages, Troy, but it's not because I think my view ought to hold sway over everyone. And I think the discussion here ought to be sufficient to convince you that your view -- which you'd like to prevail as well -- isn't accepted or agreed with by everyone, either. On 7/11/06, Troy Rollins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 12, 2006, at 12:46 AM, Dan Shafer wrote: Completely disagree. So... in other words, the language should suit specifically *you* rather than *everyone*. Director has 3 complete syntaxes. They are ALL in use. I've never heard of anyone being bothered by the existence of the two they don't use. It simply doesn't come up as an issue. How would x = 5 create problems for you if you could still PUT 5 into x? I personally find verbose arcane. Disagree all you like. Verbose tends to be far more readable by more people with less detailed knowledge of the language and system. So? Not all software is written to be handed around for community review. Some of it is just solitary programming and getting stuff done. We're not all writing eBooks about it. You may be surprised to hear, at least some of us use Revolution DESPITE of its language, not because of it. I'm sure that many experienced developers have abandoned it entirely due to the arcane- seeming syntax in contrast to virtually every other language out there. Bah! We don't need 'em! What exactly is the proven benefit of keeping verbose languages verbosely pure again? -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution -- ~~ Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author http://www.shafermedia.com Get my book, Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On 7/12/06 12:09 PM, Troy Rollins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry if I appeared to threaten the sanctity of the verbosity, but Lingo has proven that these syntaxes as described can easily live side-by-side without harm, so I didn't think I was suggesting anything too drastic... in fact, I was originally just supporting the statement made by another user. I agree with you, Troy... Lingo provides support for both the put x into y construct as well as y=x, and I never felt confused I really liked the choice that was available... Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Lingo had a lot of great features. In the end, though, it's never been adopted by a lot of folks. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find there are more Rev coders today than there are Lingo developers. On 7/12/06, Ken Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/12/06 12:09 PM, Troy Rollins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry if I appeared to threaten the sanctity of the verbosity, but Lingo has proven that these syntaxes as described can easily live side-by-side without harm, so I didn't think I was suggesting anything too drastic... in fact, I was originally just supporting the statement made by another user. I agree with you, Troy... Lingo provides support for both the put x into y construct as well as y=x, and I never felt confused I really liked the choice that was available... Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution -- ~~ Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author http://www.shafermedia.com Get my book, Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On 7/12/06 1:48 PM, Dan Shafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe it's just because I'm a writer first and a software developer second that I prefer these verbose languages, Troy, but it's not because I think my view ought to hold sway over everyone. And I think the discussion here ought to be sufficient to convince you that your view -- which you'd like to prevail as well -- isn't accepted or agreed with by everyone, either. This is one of the wonderful aspects of Revolution - people from all walks of life use it. And *because* people from all walks of life use it, there is no end to the diversity of opinions on how the language should be enhanced. Although there are some obvious tokens that I think *most people* would want changed (like playLoudness or destroy stack), there are many others that we can debate endlessly on. Fact of the matter is that the guys at RunRev will have to make the final decisions, and regardless of our own personal preferences, the language will evolve accordingly. Debating it on this list is more of a moot activity, as RunRev has said in the past that they don't scour this list looking for bug reports or enhancement requests. The best thing we can do (IMHO) is log enhancement requests in Bugzilla to get certaing parts of the language changed or expanded, and let RunRev do the rest. My 2 cents, Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On 7/12/06 2:00 PM, Dan Shafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lingo had a lot of great features. In the end, though, it's never been adopted by a lot of folks. You're kidding, right? It was adopted by everyone who used Director, which was a *huge* number of people at the time - certainly way more than the Rev user base. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find there are more Rev coders today than there are Lingo developers. Personally, I'd be extremely happy if there are more Rev coders today than Lingo developers, but I'm not sure that's the case. Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Ken No, I'm not kidding. I'm sure you knew Director users who never cracked Lingo. At one point I recall someone from Macromedia telling me that less than 20% of their Direcotr users were scripting much, or maybe at all. That was in conjunction with some language enhancements they were considering. Now, I may be *wrong*. But I'm not kidding! Big difference. On 7/12/06, Ken Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/12/06 2:00 PM, Dan Shafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lingo had a lot of great features. In the end, though, it's never been adopted by a lot of folks. You're kidding, right? It was adopted by everyone who used Director, which was a *huge* number of people at the time - certainly way more than the Rev user base. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find there are more Rev coders today than there are Lingo developers. Personally, I'd be extremely happy if there are more Rev coders today than Lingo developers, but I'm not sure that's the case. Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution -- ~~ Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author http://www.shafermedia.com Get my book, Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 12, 2006, at 2:48 PM, Dan Shafer wrote: And I think the discussion here ought to be sufficient to convince you that your view -- which you'd like to prevail as well -- isn't accepted or agreed with by everyone, either. My point being that this is hardly the crowd to solicit support for anything evolutionary to the nature of the Rev language. After all, these are the current users of the current language - not those who walked away because of it. In fact, I asked for nothing to prevail. Which would suggest some kind of displacement of the current syntax. I never suggested replacing the existing language, only adding to it as lingo did wouldn't be a bad thing. The general response was even if it doesn't affect me at all, I don't think you should get what you want. I have no particularly good reasons, but I'll defend them vigorously. And then you get together and wonder why Rev isn't as popular as it should be and what things you can do to fix it. -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Rob Cozens wrote: The key thing to remember with this proposed addition is that it's an ADDITION, and OPTION that one can CHOOSE to use if they like, or not if they don't. And if Pascal programmers want := does Rev support yet another OPTION. And if you want VB syntax, do we add yet another OPTION? Reductio ad absurdum can be amusing, sometimes even pursuasive, but rarely truly helpful. While we've had many requests over many years for what can in the 21st century rightly be called common assignment notation, yours is the first and only post to suggest Pascal be considered as well. The proposed assignment OPTION is consistent with several dozen languages, many of which are still actively growing a strong rate, as opposed to Pascal which is the only one which uses Pascal-style assignment and is in rapid decline today. This common assignment notation has three other factors weighing in its favor that Pascal notation doesn't: - It's not nearly as obscure as Regex, which is already supported - Moreover, it's already implemented in some contexts (when defining script-local vars) - Because it's already allowed in some contexts but not others, the current inconsistent implementation introduces learnability issues that would be corrected if it were allowed for all contexts; alternatively I suppose they could remove the contexts supported but that opens up a whole other can of backward-compatibility worms. I find it interesting that in the currently-supported contexts this common notation hasn't generated argument or controversy, nor has the existing support for Regex which is far less xTalk-like and far more difficult to learn. Most importantly, as Ken noted it appears little on this list affects RunRev's implementations. They will or will not add support for common assignment notation as they wish -- if they do, my only hope is that those who find it offensive please not use it so it will have no effect on them at all, any more than the current partial implementation has. PS: FWIW, I was opposed to the adoption of this assignment notation when it was first proposed several years ago, but after thinking about it and weighing the pros and cons I've changed my position. Today I see many upsides for convenience and evangelism, and no downsides for current or future users. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
I'm very new to Revolution and I certainly don't consider myself to be a programmer. I do occasionally (i.e., when it is absolutely necessary) write macros for Excel. Excel is the standard for many of us dealing with financial and economic data, but compatibility issues can make distributing workbooks with macros (and sometimes even those without macros) to anyone except the more sophisticated users a real pain. Some macros written by others simply won't run on my Mac. I'm the end user of most of my work, but when some distribution is necessary Revolution seemed like a good solution for applications that base calculations of some user inputs if a large number of cells were not required. You could simply substitute fields for cells. This seemed like a quick and easy solution for reaching people that don't have Excel or are intimidated by it. Not being able to use the equal sign to assign a value to variable struck me as odd. Not so much because that's the way we do it in VBA, but because I firmly believe that's the way I think. If I'm writing a problem in longhand that's the way I do it.In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some people that deal constantly with complex formulas might be a little put off or even amused at using Put. Given the option, I would certainly use the equal sign and think that many other potential users might make the same decision. That said, it's really no big deal. I have been fascinated by the discussion and was just a little surprised at the quantity and intensity of the objections to having equal as just an option. Joe Miller ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
I vote for the Pascal :=, too. That's the same thing Authorware uses (if you are using their script and not Javascipt). Might help Authorware refugees! Since we have put something into tSomethingElse and if we add tSomethingElse = something why not add a 3rd to accommodate everyone? Anyway, there are usually two ways to do things in Trans...er... Revolution, e.g. abs(-5) and the abs of -5, so having the two different types of assignments (put and =) seems to be within the spirit of the language. At 03:09 PM 7/12/2006, you wrote: Rob Cozens wrote: The key thing to remember with this proposed addition is that it's an ADDITION, and OPTION that one can CHOOSE to use if they like, or not if they don't. And if Pascal programmers want := does Rev support yet another OPTION. And if you want VB syntax, do we add yet another OPTION? Reductio ad absurdum can be amusing, sometimes even pursuasive, but rarely truly helpful. While we've had many requests over many years for what can in the 21st century rightly be called common assignment notation, yours is the first and only post to suggest Pascal be considered as well. The proposed assignment OPTION is consistent with several dozen languages, many of which are still actively growing a strong rate, as opposed to Pascal which is the only one which uses Pascal-style assignment and is in rapid decline today. Peter T. Evensen http://www.PetersRoadToHealth.com 314-629-5248 or 888-682-4588 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
No wonder we are thinking that way! We have been taught mathematics since the first grade at shool :-) and all think about 3=2+1 or 1+2=3 but not put 2 add 1 into 3... Later (grade 3, I think) we have been taught a bit about equations. So at the age of 9 most of us would have easily solved this: Solve: y=x*2 Given: x=10 --- Answer: y=20 Then at higher grades we vere using definition of a mathematical function and drawing graphs from its output on XY plane... This is a natural option any programming language must support at least optionaly. I do not believe people that write software have totaly forgotten or hated mathematics so, that now are insisting to use non-mathematical or linguistic notations when in mathematics there is a very clear standard. Using put is a very intuitive way to handle object related stuff in an OO-like manner - and I like it much until it comes to mathematics... All the best :-) Viktoras --snip--- Not being able to use the equal sign to assign a value to variable struck me as odd. Not so much because that's the way we do it in VBA, but because I firmly believe that's the way I think. option. ---snip--- Joe Miller ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On 7/12/06 2:17 PM, Dan Shafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I'm not kidding. I'm sure you knew Director users who never cracked Lingo. Actually, no, I didn't. To me that's like saying there are Rev users that haven't used Transcript. ;-) I guess we ran in completely different circles. I was involved on the Director-L list and working to get complicated prorgams running, so everyone I communicated with or knew about who were using Director was coding in Lingo. At one point I recall someone from Macromedia telling me that less than 20% of their Direcotr users were scripting much, or maybe at all. That was in conjunction with some language enhancements they were considering. Wow... that would really surprise me, but as I said, we probably ran in very different circles. Now, I may be *wrong*. But I'm not kidding! Big difference. Agreed. :-) Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On 7/12/06 2:01 PM, Joe Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That said, it's really no big deal. I have been fascinated by the discussion and was just a little surprised at the quantity and intensity of the objections to having equal as just an option. Basically, Rev uses the symbol '=' in place of the word 'is', a state of being. x is 99 x= 99 x 99 x 99 x is empty x = empty x = x is false x = true Rev uses 'PUT 99 into x' as an ACTION. put 99 into x put 22 ducks after word 1 of line 16 of fld textBlock put horse before fld cart get line 2 of fld archive get the short name of btn 1 set the name of fld 1 to comments beingisis not contains is in actionget set put add subtract filter sort combine split Occasionally there might be a surge in popularity to add the phrase filter noise from list Jim Ault Las Vegas Hey, watch your phraseology ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Dear Mr. not the real RGaskin, What have you done with the real Richard Gaskin! Please return him! He's the guy I've admired for his simplistic, minimalistic approach to Rev and has defended on more than one occasion the MC IDE on those same grounds. You, Sir, give yourself away by endorsing adding further complexity to the engine (more parsing, more tokens, etc..) and perhaps even slowing it down, which the real Richard Gaskin NEVER would have stood for. Furthermore, your call to 'unify LINUX' is completely against your roots in use the best tool (IDE) for the job as you and I both know the Real Richard Gaskin would never stand for such a forced merger of the MC IDE and REV. Just tell us how much you want and I'll start a collection. FREE RICHARD GASKIN!!! ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 12 2006, at 22:09, Richard Gaskin wrote: ... I find it interesting that in the currently-supported contexts this common notation hasn't generated argument or controversy, nor has the existing support for Regex which is far less xTalk-like and far more difficult to learn. ... regex has it's own function(s) if you want such a function i might suggest this notation: OtherLanguageStyleAssign(x=1) I could live with that :) more seriously, a computer language is best treated with a very conservative, almost nonchanging behaviour. At least in my opinion. So in this case (which seems to be about public relations with all the talk of other users won't appreciate the put command) i have to strongly vote for: Leave it as is! -- official ChatRev page: http://chatrev.bjoernke.com Chat with other RunRev developers: go stack URL http://homepage.mac.com/bvg/chatrev1.3.rev; ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Come to think of it. I certainly can get on board with a bunch of language changes. Frankly, I'm a huge fan of dot notation and would really like to be able to hilite a checkbox by calling: myGroup.button.'fred'.hilite=1 And while we're at it, let's fix the = conditional test so that it's proper: == then we can truly have x=1 assignments! And who wouldn't mind saving a few keystrokes to increment a variable: var++ Since I'm hoping my changes will be made soon, some of you may want to print out the simple chart below to help you with my proposed dot notation: . at the end is a constructor . at the beginning is an instance member . at beginning and $ at the end is an instance field . only in the middle is a static member .class suffix is a class Hopefully we'll all be up and running in no time at all! In the meantime, while we're 'fixing stuff' and just to make things a bit easier on us all, how about if we can get some new syntax: on justMakeItWork revFixEveryBugInMyCodeThenEmailMe if the result contains Error then revFileBugZillaReport the result end if end justMakeItWork Jacque? You working on this one yet? (tongue firmly implanted in cheek). ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 12, 2006, at 8:41 PM, Björnke von Gierke wrote: i have to strongly vote for: Leave it as is! I do find it interesting how strongly people feel about things which don't affect them. I'll be sure to react equally negatively the next time I see an opinion expressed which doesn't affect me. Just to better fit in. -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Troy, Are you 100% certain changes to the underlying language and engine would not affect anyone else? Just wondering. -Chipp ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Björnke von Gierke wrote: i have to strongly vote for: Leave it as is! By as it is do you mean to maintain the engine's existing support for using = as an assignment operator, or remove the current inconsistency by eliminating such support? -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Chipp Walters wrote: on justMakeItWork revFixEveryBugInMyCodeThenEmailMe if the result contains Error then revFileBugZillaReport the result end if end justMakeItWork Jacque? You working on this one yet? (tongue firmly implanted in cheek). When my time warp stack is done, I did it six months from now. The email part was easy. I am remaining carefully neutral on this thread in the mean time. ;) -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED] HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Are you 100% certain changes to the underlying language and engine would not affect anyone else? Are you 100% sure that it would cause problems? I'm 62% sure I've lost track of whose serve it is now. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED] HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Surely, in these mathematical cases, the '=' is not assigning anything, it is rather signifying that (y) and (x*2) are equal. So IF x=10 THEN y=20. Best, Mark On 12 Jul 2006, at 22:38, Viktoras Didziulis wrote: Solve: y=x*2 Given: x=10 --- Answer: y=20 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On 7/12/06, Troy Rollins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you 100% sure that it would cause problems? Nope. I am not. But then I'm not the one making the statement to that effect either. You of course know way more than I ever want to about Director. That said, I do remember how slow Director was 'back in the day', after it retooled itself to become an object-oriented programming language. We in fact had to redo a commercial product for a customer based on our enthusiasm for object programming in Director-- solely based on unacceptably slow performance. That is unfortunately my only yardstick w/regard to Director and object-oriented Lingo/Javascript/etc.. BTW, the developer for that project was a very experienced Director developer with already shipping product And, there is a general opinion that adding more language and more parsing requirements tends to slow down an interpreter. Now, of course adding a single '=' assignment, probably wouldn't create too much a burden on the engine, or us oldtime programmers. And, like you, it would *really* save me some typing! But, I really think the core of this discussion is more towards preserving the language as is, or making significant changes (1 by 1) to make it more 'C-friendly' (or Pascal frienldy, Forth friendly, LISP friendly, etc..). I believe that is what Björnke, Rob, Dan, myself and others are reacting to. In that light, I have mentioned three specific objections: Complexity, Performance, and Readability/Maintainability. (is that 4?) It is obvious there are those for some proposed language changes, and others against. Though as Ken smartly pointed out, the subject is moot as it's probably not something which is currently on Rev's radar. All that said, RR will do what they want, and we will follow. So if they decide to add a Javascript layer, then so be it. best regards, Chipp ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 12, 2006, at 10:09 PM, Chipp Walters wrote: So if they decide to add a Javascript layer, then so be it. Agreed. -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 13 2006, at 03:51, Richard Gaskin wrote: Björnke von Gierke wrote: i have to strongly vote for: Leave it as is! By as it is do you mean to maintain the engine's existing support for using = as an assignment operator, or remove the current inconsistency by eliminating such support? ... Just the way it is, with no changes. http://www.answers.com/as+isr=67#Idioms AS-IS, WITH ALL FAULTS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_is -- official ChatRev page: http://chatrev.bjoernke.com Chat with other RunRev developers: go stack URL http://homepage.mac.com/bvg/chatrev1.3.rev; ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Unfortunately, learning it as a first programming language wasn't among them as virtually every 'teach yourself Lingo/Director' book on the market was hopelessly mired in dot.syntax and, IIRC, so was Macromedia's own documentation. Since we're all having fun repeating ourselves (hey -- if we really want concise language, we could just use pointers to our previous posts on the subject, no?) ;-) ... -- not directed at anyone in particular... there were 24 cohorts in our first MS in instructional design and technology program; 2 dropped out, leaving 22; of those 22, I believe only TWO produced a final thesis-project using Director; the remainder used FrontPage (except for me, and I used Rev). Of the 2 Director users, at least 1 will never touch it again inasmuch as she didn't really use it, either, trading work for work as she did the writing/proof-reading for the sole Director enthusiast for his doing her development work. It kinda reminds me of comments I hear from persons learning English as a second language -- that it's extraordinarily difficult even for those individuals who are multi-lingual because English mixes so many different 'styles' and grammar/exceptions, ways of doing things, etc. Judy On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Dan Shafer wrote: Lingo had a lot of great features. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
I hear there's still some markets for COBOL Ada... B... Judy On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Richard Gaskin wrote: Rob Cozens wrote: And if Pascal programmers want := does Rev support yet another OPTION. And if you want VB syntax, do we add yet another OPTION? Reductio ad absurdum can be amusing, sometimes even pursuasive, but rarely truly helpful. While we've had many requests over many years for what can in the 21st century rightly be called common assignment notation, yours is the first and only post to suggest Pascal be considered as well. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Hmmm... I guess I *used* to think that way... Then my Dad let me use one of his/early?? HP brick RPN calculators. Now I can't remember how I think. Here's another example: Here's the number of formatting styles I've had to learn over the years in academia: Chicago Style Harvard Style AP Style APA Style Whatever's-Used for Legal Style Whatever's-Used for Scientific Writing And probably a few others I can't even remember anymore. Result? I can't write citations and bibliography references to save my soul. They've all merged into this shapeless, useless mishmash of styles such that if I want to submit something for publication, I have to hire somebody to do the formatting. Judy On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Viktoras Didziulis wrote: No wonder we are thinking that way! We have been taught mathematics since the first grade at shool :-) and all think about 3=2+1 or 1+2=3 but not put 2 add 1 into 3... Later (grade 3, I think) we have been taught a bit about equations. So at the age of 9 most of us would have easily solved this: Solve: y=x*2 Given: x=10 --- Answer: y=20 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
As long as we're OT and having fun As recently as four years ago, I saw a study that said there were still more lines of COBOL code in active use in the U.S. than all other languages combined. (Mind you, that could be one government procurement program, but still) And a friend of mine who's a software auditor for a DoD agency says a HUGE percentage of the Ada code they have actually consists of a very few lines of Ada that call a C program. The government required Ada to be used but made an exception for cases where an existing C program was already tested and in place. One of the best recipes for avoiding innovation anyone's ever seen. On 7/12/06, Judy Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hear there's still some markets for COBOL Ada... -- ~~ Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author http://www.shafermedia.com Get my book, Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
A bit late in the debate (but I am at my cottage with at best primitive dial-up): On 11-Jul-06, at 8:29 PM, Dan wrote: I for one wish Rev had never compromised and begun using the equal sign as an assignment operator. Many (perhaps most) other languages disambiguate the confusing uses by some artificial construct. In Pascal, e.g., assignment is :=. In C/C++ as I recall, equality is testred with == and some special type of equality is ===. Just syntactical crap. As Richard says, if this is an optional addition to the language, I guess I'd grudgingly -- VERY darned grudgingly -- look the other way. But I'd hold my nose at the same time. I can't but disagree. I have yet to find anyone with more than a few minutes of experience who is confused by a statement such as `x=1' *in context*. Indeed, I would go so far as to advocate further that even the logical variants of `x=1' have a numerical value (e.g., 0 for false, 1 for true) as in many languages (especially BASICs), so that the logical value can be used directly in algebraic (and string) expressions without having to work through a lengthy series of logical conversions. For example: x = (z=x)*y # if z=x then x=y, else x=0; what could be simpler? A good example of the silliness of over-emphasising the acontextual distinction between assignment and logical statements is seen in the programming/statistical system/language R (GNU's S): for years the most common operation of assignment required the clumsy syntax x-1 # assign the value of 1 to x, almost as stupid as Pascal's x:=1 two-keystrokes (including a shift-key for one of the characters) for the most common statement! The usual comments were trotted out in defence: ``but a statement such as x=1 is ambiguous, and confusing to the user!'' Eventually, the keepers of R (all wonderful people of surpassing brilliance and humanity) relented, and x=1 # assign the value of 1 to x was allowed as an *optional* variant of x-1. The average, or even novice R user has no more problem interpreting such statements than does the R parser/interpreter (which is never confused over this issue). And, in R the x-1 syntax is even less arbitrary than in RR/ MC, because a reversal of the assignment arrow, x-y, also has a unique meaning in R. (One does note, though, that most R books still use the x-1 form, probably because they are written by my fellow professorial colleagues who never miss an opportunity to evince pedantry.) Many other languages have at least recognised that lengthening the assignment statement is inefficient, so instead have lengthened the logical form, using such constructions as `x==1' for a test of equality. Again, though, as this is the most common form of the logical test (i.e., equality is tested more often than most other logical statements), it is inefficient, and, again, as it is always clear from the context (and, note, therefore as simple to write the interpreter for one form as the other), such requirements amount to no more than pedantry and fussiness. As noted, the solution is not to force a given syntax, but to offer efficient shortcuts as options. So, use put 1 into x if you want, but allow for x=1 as an equivalent, but more efficient syntax. After all, RR/MC allows for regex expressions, and they are hardly transparent or non-ambiguous to the novice (or even experienced!) user! -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -Dr. John R. Vokey ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Bob Sneidar wrote: I was just telling someone the other day, the main draw of computer programming is that it offers a perfect world where if you do everything right, you get out of it exactly what you expect, unlike the real world, where you can do everything right and have everything go oh so wrong. Computer programming is like playing with a virtual constructor kit. We love it because building things (even virtual things) is a whole lot of fun! Building things which other people find useful is even more fun! Which goes to another theory I have, and that is that we never stop being children. We just learn to handle responsibility better. And I am inclined to agree. However the level of abstract and logical thinking required for really good computer programming requires a certain amount of psychological maturity. Now - back to my maladjusted kid! I don't see the world of computer programming as a psychological save-haven away from the buffettings of everyday life. After all, a brilliant computer programmer who cannot pitch her/his idea to the customer/end-user is still nothing more than a socially disfunctional zero; similarly, a brilliant computer programmer who cannot listen and understand a customer/end-user's needs and implement them in a way that the end-user can work with is nothing more than the geeky person in the psychological anorak. What I do see, is that after 2 weeks, my maladjusted kid has, by managing to produce something that works (side-scrolling 2D game at the moment), gained a leevl of confidence that he managed to open his mouth to somebody other than Mummy and Teacher for possibly the first time in 10 years. I would be extremely worried if I thought that any kid, maladjusted or not, who spent some time under my tutelage would end up as a mono-maniac who had to have a mouse surgically implanted into his hand or could only have conversations of the sort: Hi, On MouseUp, If What Then? End If sincerely, Richmond Mathewson Philosophical problems are confusions arising owing to the fluidity of meanings users attach to words and phrases. Mathewson, 2006 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
I have found Rev extremely intuitive except for one thing: I wish it would parse x = 5 (if not following an IF) the same as put 5 into x That's the one thing I would change. :-) On Jul 11, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Richmond Mathewson wrote: Bob Sneidar wrote: I was just telling someone the other day, the main draw of computer programming is that it offers a perfect world where if you do everything right, you get out of it exactly what you expect, unlike the real world, where you can do everything right and have everything go oh so wrong. Computer programming is like playing with a virtual constructor kit. We love it because building things (even virtual things) is a whole lot of fun! Building things which other people find useful is even more fun! Which goes to another theory I have, and that is that we never stop being children. We just learn to handle responsibility better. And I am inclined to agree. However the level of abstract and logical thinking required for really good computer programming requires a certain amount of psychological maturity. Now - back to my maladjusted kid! I don't see the world of computer programming as a psychological save-haven away from the buffettings of everyday life. After all, a brilliant computer programmer who cannot pitch her/his idea to the customer/end-user is still nothing more than a socially disfunctional zero; similarly, a brilliant computer programmer who cannot listen and understand a customer/end-user's needs and implement them in a way that the end-user can work with is nothing more than the geeky person in the psychological anorak. What I do see, is that after 2 weeks, my maladjusted kid has, by managing to produce something that works (side-scrolling 2D game at the moment), gained a leevl of confidence that he managed to open his mouth to somebody other than Mummy and Teacher for possibly the first time in 10 years. I would be extremely worried if I thought that any kid, maladjusted or not, who spent some time under my tutelage would end up as a mono-maniac who had to have a mouse surgically implanted into his hand or could only have conversations of the sort: Hi, On MouseUp, If What Then? End If sincerely, Richmond Mathewson Philosophical problems are confusions arising owing to the fluidity of meanings users attach to words and phrases. Mathewson, 2006 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
There has been discussion here of this in the past. Some for it, some against. The fact is that xTalks (as far as I know) have never used '=' as an assignment operator, except in the one case where Revolution does so, when declaring a variable : local x = 5 You could argue that since so many languages use '=' as an assignment operator then Revolution should too. But I like it the way it is, because 1) I'm used to it, and 2) it's more like what I've always understood '=' to mean in maths ie. thing A is equal to thing B, which is a statement that is either true or false. So in Revolution, 'x = 5' is an expression that evaluates to true if the value held in variable x happens to be 5, and I'd imagine that changing this might cause all sorts of trouble. Maybe it would be practical to implement a pascal-type '==' assignment operator, but I don't know enough about the way scripts are compiled to know if that could happen. best, Mark On 11 Jul 2006, at 22:54, Josh Mellicker wrote: I have found Rev extremely intuitive except for one thing: I wish it would parse x = 5 (if not following an IF) the same as put 5 into x That's the one thing I would change. :-) On Jul 11, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Richmond Mathewson wrote: Bob Sneidar wrote: I was just telling someone the other day, the main draw of computer programming is that it offers a perfect world where if you do everything right, you get out of it exactly what you expect, unlike the real world, where you can do everything right and have everything go oh so wrong. Computer programming is like playing with a virtual constructor kit. We love it because building things (even virtual things) is a whole lot of fun! Building things which other people find useful is even more fun! Which goes to another theory I have, and that is that we never stop being children. We just learn to handle responsibility better. And I am inclined to agree. However the level of abstract and logical thinking required for really good computer programming requires a certain amount of psychological maturity. Now - back to my maladjusted kid! I don't see the world of computer programming as a psychological save-haven away from the buffettings of everyday life. After all, a brilliant computer programmer who cannot pitch her/his idea to the customer/end-user is still nothing more than a socially disfunctional zero; similarly, a brilliant computer programmer who cannot listen and understand a customer/end-user's needs and implement them in a way that the end-user can work with is nothing more than the geeky person in the psychological anorak. What I do see, is that after 2 weeks, my maladjusted kid has, by managing to produce something that works (side-scrolling 2D game at the moment), gained a leevl of confidence that he managed to open his mouth to somebody other than Mummy and Teacher for possibly the first time in 10 years. I would be extremely worried if I thought that any kid, maladjusted or not, who spent some time under my tutelage would end up as a mono-maniac who had to have a mouse surgically implanted into his hand or could only have conversations of the sort: Hi, On MouseUp, If What Then? End If sincerely, Richmond Mathewson Philosophical problems are confusions arising owing to the fluidity of meanings users attach to words and phrases. Mathewson, 2006 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 11, 2006, at 8:05 PM, Mark Smith wrote: So in Revolution, 'x = 5' is an expression that evaluates to true if the value held in variable x happens to be 5, and I'd imagine that changing this might cause all sorts of trouble. Maybe it would be practical to implement a pascal-type '==' assignment operator, but I don't know enough about the way scripts are compiled to know if that could happen. I understand the historical reasons, but the argument that it would mess anything up I just can't see. Like anything else, the purpose is within the context. You would no sooner put x = 5 on a line by itself for any reason other than assignment of value, than you would put true or false on lines by themselves. I don't see any opportunity for ambiguity of intention here. Director has had this syntax without problems for many years. x = 5 // assignment if x = 5 then // comparison I can't tell you how many times I've first written variable assignments this way in Revolution only to turn around and say oh yeah... PUT the key into the backpack...PUT 5 into x Yes. Revolution coding STILL seems to me like playing text adventure games from the 80s. ;-) -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Troy Rollins wrote: On Jul 11, 2006, at 8:05 PM, Mark Smith wrote: So in Revolution, 'x = 5' is an expression that evaluates to true if the value held in variable x happens to be 5, and I'd imagine that changing this might cause all sorts of trouble. Maybe it would be practical to implement a pascal-type '==' assignment operator, but I don't know enough about the way scripts are compiled to know if that could happen. I understand the historical reasons, but the argument that it would mess anything up I just can't see. Like anything else, the purpose is within the context. You would no sooner put x = 5 on a line by itself for any reason other than assignment of value, than you would put true or false on lines by themselves. I don't see any opportunity for ambiguity of intention here. Director has had this syntax without problems for many years. x = 5 // assignment if x = 5 then // comparison I think Troy's on to something very important there. The key thing to remember with this proposed addition is that it's an ADDITION, and OPTION that one can CHOOSE to use if they like, or not if they don't. It does no harm to the current language, and offers greater freedom for a wider range of programming styles. As long as the language already supports things as arcane as Regex without argument, it seems silly to fight options like an assignment operator most of the rest of the world uses. If it offends, one can simply not use it and - poof! -- like magic it's no longer an issue. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On 7/12/06, Josh Mellicker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have found Rev extremely intuitive except for one thing: I wish it would parse x = 5 (if not following an IF) the same as put 5 into x I would like this for speed of scriptiing reasons, but not for logic reasons - if that makes sense. It would be much faster to type x = 5 than put 5 into x but less logical. When I first started to learn programming (many years ago), I came across a line like this: x = x + 1 My eyes glazed over as I tried to work out what they meant by this obviously false statement! How can anything be equal to itself plus 1 - that's just crazy. So I'm happy to stick to put 5 into x and add 1 to x :-) Cheers, Sarah ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On 7/11/06, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Troy's on to something very important there. The key thing to remember with this proposed addition is that it's an ADDITION, and OPTION that one can CHOOSE to use if they like, or not if they don't. Hi Richard, I'm not wholly on board with that line of thought. Frankly, IMHO, Rev's verbose enough, w/out having to remember all the other possible names for doing things, etc.. In fact, last I checked, the number of tokens was up over 1000. Very difficult for new users to learn 1000 tokens indeed. The other issue is regarding maintenance and readability for OTHER programmers. If there's this arcane 'other' way of doing something, it may make it more difficult. Lastly, at some point, adding new synonym tokens takes up resources. Programming resources of Rev, memory resources for the engine, speed of the engine's parsing, etc.. Though Troy's particular issue is certainly a good one (try switching back and forth from VB to Rev!), adding a multitude of synonyms and vernacular, IMO, only creates further road blocks to learning the language. best as always, Chipp ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
On Jul 11, 2006, at 10:02 PM, Chipp Walters wrote: The other issue is regarding maintenance and readability for OTHER programmers. If there's this arcane 'other' way of doing something, it may make it more difficult. But this is a case where the syntax exist with Rev NOW, but not within this context. It is REALLY at odds with itself when... local x = 5 // is legal, and perfectly normal x = 5 // is not, and is an unthinkable construction -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
-- continue thread even further put 1 into x Point x: I am not a programming expert Point x = x + 1: but some things seem to make my world harder to understand Point x = x + 1: and it is hard enough already Point x = x + 1: you get my point? Isn't it likely that the number 5 represents a count of something, i.e. ; the number of buttons in a group the number of working days in the week the number of cups of coffee I drank this morning the number of lines in a text field etc. I would almost never use the number itself, rather I find the way of describing the thing being counted and use the language to get the count initially. Then I would use gGroupedBtns or tMyCoffees as the variable name so I can remember what I was counting when I reference it later in my code. -- end of abstract thinking about abstract concepts tMyCoffees = tMyCoffees + 1 (ahhh... that's better) John T Sarah Reichelt wrote: On 7/12/06, Josh Mellicker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have found Rev extremely intuitive except for one thing: I wish it would parse x = 5 (if not following an IF) the same as put 5 into x I would like this for speed of scriptiing reasons, but not for logic reasons - if that makes sense. It would be much faster to type x = 5 than put 5 into x but less logical. When I first started to learn programming (many years ago), I came across a line like this: x = x + 1 My eyes glazed over as I tried to work out what they meant by this obviously false statement! How can anything be equal to itself plus 1 - that's just crazy. So I'm happy to stick to put 5 into x and add 1 to x :-) Cheers, Sarah ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Dependence on Programming Experts
Actually, this article is quite relevant to this thread in a way... It highlights how differently we all think (hardwired or not I don't know) and therefore why this string can go on for ever. I suspect that different approaches to expressing the abstract stuff of computer programming suit different ones of us and the way our brains work. http://www.grandin.com/references/thinking.animals.html Cheers again John T Judy Perry wrote: And, indeed, I think that THAT's the hallmark of the 'seductive' environment of which Dan speaks. It seems to be, of necessity, a carrot and stick thing: something draws you in makes you happy/productive, and then willing to conquer the stick. Judy On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, J. Landman Gay wrote: I had to smile at this, mostly because I remember you going through it. Congrats, Garrett, you've crossed over. :) Your learning curve was pretty classic. First you hate it, then you start to see possibilities, then you get it, then the world's your oyster. Takes a few weeks, but is well worth it. But as Greg says, not everyone wants to be a programmer. I'm not sure how Rev could dumb itself down enough to do what Greg wants without any programming at all. I think Media with its templates is a step in the right direction, but Rev is definitely a programming environment and without at least some scripting it can only do so much. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
