I agree wholeheartedly.
Here's my rant... I've been involved continuously with computers since 1967
(Comp. Sci, 70) and programmed in just about every commercial language on
just about every type of commercial computer AND THEY ALL SUCK. I bought a
Mac in 1984 and Hypercard in 1987 AND THEY
I wish xTalk had some ADDITIONAL constructs that made it more
accessible to computer scientists and professional programmers.
Both because without them xTalk look amateurish, and therefore less
likely to be used by professionals, and because it would make it
significantly easier to port code
Thirty years ago I wrote a proposal for using lisp for a distributed
control system project.
Hi Dar,
Thirty years ago I was responsible for procurement and development of
Oakland Police Department's MIS. While the City of Oakland DP Dept.
was a COBOL shop, Boeing Computer Systems had just
the association
of Xtalk and C can lead to a tremendous power in high end
projects, Rev Xtalk being used to build top quality front
ends (with unbeatable productivity cost ratios) while C
being used in externals
JB, and anyone else enamored of C:
Program all the externals you desire!
But if
On 11/2/04 12:27 am, Dan Shafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. I'm with those who say to RunRev, The syntax is beautiful. We
don't care if 'real programmers' (whoever *they* are) think it's
amateurish. We'll be happy to keep making a living by writing apps
faster and cheaper than all those
although a C and asm compiler would be nice,
C has this nice feature for other language usage...
on mouseup
c{
do some c code real fast ;
asm{
do some assembler code at warpspeed;
}
}
See? No need for those overcomplicated externals... ;)
-=-
On Wednesday, February 11, 2004, at 05:55 AM, Rob Cozens wrote:
Maybe it should be x := 1 for Pascal programmers; or how about x =
1; for PL/1 programmers?
Maybe it could be x :=) 1 for I just dumped my girl-friend...
mb
___
use-revolution mailing
Rob,
JB, and anyone else enamored of C:
Program all the externals you desire!
But if you're only using C for externals, there is no need for C
syntax in Transcriptand there isn't anyway, IMFO.
--
100% agreed.
What I meant was : use Transcript for top quality front ends,
and C for
On 11/2/04 12:27 am, Dan Shafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
because we have a
language that thinks like we do, not like the compiler does.
Bien cordialement, Pierre Sahores
100, rue de Paris
F - 77140 Nemours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GSM: +33 6 03 95 77 70
Pro: +33 1 41 60 52 68
Dom: +33 1 64 45
Kevin wrote,
The syntax is neither amateurish, nor only for beginners. The...
We're not about to spend time making our virtually self-commenting code...
Hurray!
Rich Herz
Mechanical Aerospace Engineering Dept.
University of California, San Diego
___
From: Ed McCabe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2004/02/11 Wed AM 09:37:31 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: no subject
Dan said:
I've resisted comment as long as I can. It's torture.
Most of my feelings have been expressed by others, but there is one
point that I think is perhaps
As someone else mentioned, x = 1 already has meaning in xTalk
Frank, et al:
For the record, I'm not just waxing theoretical here: look through
the handlers in any component of Serendipity Library and you will
find statements were I use x = 1 [or more likely x is 1, but
syntactically
On Feb 10, 2004, at 5:29 PM, Frank Leahy wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2004, at 01:14 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Supporting JavaScript is an interesting idea. I probably wouldn't
used it, but I wonder if it would bring others to Revolution.
And the new Director supports JavaScript
because we have a
language that thinks like we do, not like the compiler does.
Well, even if I somehow agree with the above sentence (because I more
or less understand what it implies), I must confess I don't really like
it...
IMHO computers and languages DO NOT THINK. Only programers
jbv wrote:
The main point I want to make is that this discussion about introducing
C-like syntax in x-Talk is totally pointless, especially if the only
goal is to make Transcript look less amateurish...
Amen. The strongest argument for the legitimacy of Transcript is an army of
well-marketed
- do you really think that the current Rev / MC IDEs allow us to
maintain
debug scripts with hundreds or thousands of lines ? Of course not... But
CodeWarrior (for instance) does...
So in conclusion, I'm tempted to say that the language itself doesn't
look
amateurish at all (and DOESN'T need to
The strongest argument for the legitimacy of Transcript is an army of
well-marketed world-class apps made with it.
...with the Made With Run Rev logo in every About box.:{`)
--
Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company
http://www.oenolog.net/who.htm
And I, which was two fooles, do so grow
- do you really think that the current Rev / MC IDEs allow us to
maintain
debug scripts with hundreds or thousands of lines ? Of course not...
But
Salut, JB,
And my I say that I agree wholehearted with every word you
wrote...until you ended with the statements I included above:
1. The stack
Ok guys,
I should have written :
- do you really think that the current Rev / MC IDEs allow us to EASILY
maintain
debug scripts with hundreds or thousands of lines ?
BTW I know that very long scripts run without any problem in Rev.
My point wasn't the execution of scripts, but rather the
jbv wrote:
I should have written :
- do you really think that the current Rev / MC IDEs allow us to EASILY
maintain
debug scripts with hundreds or thousands of lines ?
BTW I know that very long scripts run without any problem in Rev.
My point wasn't the execution of scripts, but rather
Kevin Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We believe programming should be like
creativity, like drawing or writing, not like arcane.
Bravo !
--
Vous parlez français ? faites un tour sur le groupe francophone !
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jetez un oeil sur RevoBlog http://revoblog.free.fr !
Who wants Rev to be as user-friendly as C?
I'm afraid that's impossible, Judy: one would have to--
* dumb down the Rev Dev UI,
* completely rewrite Transcript to make the syntax as succinct as possible
* power down the syntax so it takes half a page of code to
accomplish what could
Having put as the sole assignment syntax means, IMHO, that people
looking at RR think it's more like HyperCard than less like HyperCard
Frank, et al:
My apologies if this is a repost. I originally sent it at 9 AM
yesterday, and if it appeared on the list, I missed it:
Not supporting these
Rob Cozens a *crit :
Is there something inherently inferior about a programming
environment that can be used productively by someone who doesn't have
a degree in computer science?
Do professional developers feel threatened by the concept of business
people writing custom software to drive
Not supporting these standard statements make the language look a
bit beginner-ish
Frank, et al:
Is there something inherently inferior about a programming
environment that can be used productively by someone who doesn't have
a degree in computer science?
Do professional developers feel
Frank wrote
This isn't an either or proposition. Adding support
for x = 1 would have no impact on the RR IDE. It would have no impact
on your ability to use put 1 into x all you want. It would have no
impact on you, or anyone else using RR today. But it would make my
life easier. And, I
On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 10:20 AM, Frank Leahy wrote:
BUT...I wish xTalk had some ADDITIONAL constructs that made it more
accessible to computer scientists and professional programmers. Both
because without them xTalk look amateurish, and therefore less likely
to be used by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frank wrote
This isn't an either or proposition. Adding support
for x = 1 would have no impact on the RR IDE. It would have no impact
on your ability to use put 1 into x all you want. It would have no
impact on you, or anyone else using RR today. But it would
Sure, this is a perfectly valid point. Most tools have their place; some
are more extensible or perhaps farther-reaching than others...
I largely have no need for the power/etc. of C et al. Others likely do.
I would just hate for the elegance and comprehensible nature of xTalks to
be
Me too!
I've never really understood why we start by teaching the really confusing
stuff and then offer the higher-level languages LAST (AND wonder why we
have horrendous attrition rates...).
It seems much more intuitive to get people to learn the general things in
a visual environment with
On 2/11/04 4:19 AM, Dar Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my mind I am not separating xTalk from Transcript from Revolution.
What is xTalk?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] afraid to reveal my ignorance
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Supporting JavaScript is an interesting idea. I probably wouldn't used it,
but I wonder if it would bring others to Revolution.
Authorware 7 added support for writing scripts in JavaScript instead of the
Authorware scripting language. Not sure why they decided to do that,
unless they thought
At 8:19 AM +0900 2/11/04, Doug Lerner wrote:
What is xTalk?
It's a generic term for the family of languages of which Transcript
is one. The first was HyperTalk, and several of them have been of the
form somethingTalk (SuperTalk, MetaTalk), hence xTalk.
--
jeanne a. e. devoto ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've resisted comment as long as I can. It's torture.
Most of my feelings have been expressed by others, but there is one
point that I think is perhaps under-appreciated.
The notion that we should add to the Transcript syntax to make the
program less beginnerish (which I agree it isn't anyway
On Feb 10, 2004, at 3:37 PM, Peter T. Evensen wrote:
Supporting JavaScript is an interesting idea. I probably wouldn't
used it, but I wonder if it would bring others to Revolution.
Authorware 7 added support for writing scripts in JavaScript instead
of the Authorware scripting language. Not
On Feb 10, 2004, at 3:37 PM, Peter T. Evensen wrote:
Supporting JavaScript is an interesting idea. I probably wouldn't
used it, but I wonder if it would bring others to Revolution.
Authorware 7 added support for writing scripts in JavaScript
instead of the Authorware scripting language. Not
On Wednesday, February 11, 2004, at 01:14 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Supporting JavaScript is an interesting idea. I probably wouldn't
used it, but I wonder if it would bring others to Revolution.
And the new Director supports JavaScript alongside Lingo syntax. My
bet: it'll just confuse
On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 06:18 PM, Robert Brenstein wrote:
I think that one of the selling points of MetaCard was its reputation
of being rock-solid. Rev should strive for the same.
Revolution might have a larger customer base and a customer base
consisting of a broader range of
I think that one of the selling points of MetaCard was its reputation
of being rock-solid. Rev should strive for the same.
Revolution might have a larger customer base and a customer base
consisting of a broader range of customers. This might contribute to a
greater number of reported bugs
A, but which Lingo? Verbose or dot.syntax?
(Which I daresay confuses people just as you suggested in your previous
post).
Judy
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Dan Shafer wrote:
And the new Director supports JavaScript alongside Lingo syntax. My
bet: it'll just confuse everyone. (And I love Lingo,
On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 07:05 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:
While I can't say I've pushed the engine as hard as the combined
talent of
this list, in my experience the engine's performance has been
exceptional.
I find this interesting. And frustrating.
When the general assumption among the
On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 07:05 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:
While I can't say I've pushed the engine as hard as the combined talent of
this list, in my experience the engine's performance has been exceptional.
I find this interesting. And frustrating.
When the general assumption among the
On Feb 10, 2004, at 8:23 PM, Dar Scott wrote:
The best way to make the engine rock-solid is to knock over the idol.
Are you talking concrete, or just sedimentary sandstone or volcanic
pumice? I used to prefer the term bullet proof but I recently viewed
on The Science Channel that the firing of
On 2/10/04 7:23 PM, Dar Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I can't say I've pushed the engine as hard as the combined
talent of
this list, in my experience the engine's performance has been
exceptional.
I find this interesting. And frustrating.
When the general assumption among the
Frank,
If you want dot notation and equals signs, why wouldn't you just use C, or
VB or Java or any ohter authoring language which has those? That's what
*they do*. At some point, adding same syntax ends up creating same
functionality.
The fact is that the X-talks *are not like those other
I agree with you Chipp.
I turned down a job doing a Director project and instead talked them
into doing it in REV because I KNEW I could get it done quicker and in
the short time frame they needed. Now D does have its points but XTalk
just works better for these type of projects for me. I can
On 2/9/04 4:31 PM, Thomas McGrath III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With REV I 'think' about what I want in english
like terms and then start typing.
I think that's what started the thread. Not all developers around the world
think in English-like terms. :)
doug
Kjetil Rå Hauge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Applescript already has French
No more. And it's *good* ;-)
The french version ws plagued with a number of bugs...
It was funny to play Babelfish with it (fr en fr) ;-)))
As a french speaker, I am *not* disturbed by having to write scripts in
a
On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 07:44 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank,
If you want dot notation and equals signs, why wouldn't you just use
C, or
VB or Java or any ohter authoring language which has those? That's what
*they do*. At some point, adding same syntax ends up creating same
Le 9 févr. 04, à 08:34, Doug Lerner a écrit :
On 2/9/04 4:31 PM, Thomas McGrath III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With REV I 'think' about what I want in english
like terms and then start typing.
I think that's what started the thread. Not all developers around the
world
think in English-like
Doug Lerner a *crit :
On 2/9/04 4:31 PM, Thomas McGrath III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With REV I 'think' about what I want in english
like terms and then start typing.
I think that's what started the thread. Not all developers around the world
think in English-like terms. :)
AFAIR
Doug Lerner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that's what started the thread. Not all developers around the world
think in English-like terms. :)
You are wrong. In spite of my sig, when I am scripting I think directly
in pig-english ;-)
In fact, I am almost speaking in my head while typing --
I english orientation language of RunRev love.
Jim
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
I like xObject as a name. Sort of an 'xTalk' based upon object models
for RAD.
I only think of stack, card and controls as objects anyway. I don't
even 'get' the metaphor anymore. Of course, I don't 'get' the stage,
players either. I mean deep in my mind when I am planning a new project
I
I once heard that AppleScript was localizable into other languages --
French, I think. I even heard that they produced, but never released, a
C dialect of AppleScript to make the serious programmers happy. ;-)
regards,
Geoff Canyon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Feb 8, 2004, at 3:09 PM, Stephen Quinn
On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 03:34 AM, Frank Leahy wrote:
I think you're confusing the language (xTalk), with the development
and runtime environment (call it HyperCard++ for the moment).
HyperCard++ is a Rapid Application Development environment that uses
the concepts of stacks, cards and
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Frank Leahy wrote:
Disagreeing right back at you. If you want professionals to use Rev,
then you need standard assignment statement syntax -- without them
Revolution looks like a hobbyist language rather than a real working
language (oh, it's just HyperTalk, and we all
On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 12:31 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Frank Leahy wrote:
Disagreeing right back at you. If you want professionals to use Rev,
then you need standard assignment statement syntax -- without them
Revolution looks like a hobbyist language rather
On 2/10/04 9:52 AM, Dar Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 05:43 PM, Doug Lerner wrote:
thisStudent.age + thatStudent.age
thisStudent[age] + thatStudent[age]
...is admittedly 6 characters over yours.
Yes, associative arrays are essentially properties.
Judy Perry wrote:
As I've spent a good chunk of time reading some of these, it would seem
that novice programmers try to 'memorize' indeed, but lack comprehension
as traditional programming languages involve using the 'black box' model
of a computer, whereas scripting languages, code reuse
On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 06:08 PM, Doug Lerner wrote:
thatStack.thisCard.button:thisButton.hilite = true
Most of my object names are multiple words. Would that be handled like
this?
stack:Blueberry Martians.card:Surface
Ambulance.button:Simulate Roll.hilite = true
Could
Frank Leahy wrote:
And my bet still stands -- I'm willing to bet $20 that the code to
parse x = 1 is already in place, but commented out in the RR engine
for historical reasons.
You may have just lost $20: = is already an operator in Transcript (used
as in Pascal, for comparison).
When
If Transcript were to look just like C et al, what would be its
comparative advantage??
Show of hands: Who wants Rev to be as user-friendly as C?
maybe this is what they were looking for http://www.softintegration.com/
Tuviah
___
use-revolution
On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 06:33 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Frank Leahy wrote:
And my bet still stands -- I'm willing to bet $20 that the code to
parse x = 1 is already in place, but commented out in the RR engine
for historical reasons.
You may have just lost $20: = is already an operator
On 2/10/04 10:20 AM, Dar Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 06:08 PM, Doug Lerner wrote:
thatStack.thisCard.button:thisButton.hilite = true
Most of my object names are multiple words. Would that be handled like
this?
stack:Blueberry
On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 06:08 PM, Frank Leahy wrote:
I said ADD support for x = 1 as AN ALTERNATIVE to put -- you get
to decide which you use.
Rats, I'm dragging this on after Frank is trying to bow out.
One of the problems with an alternative is that those reading the
script do not
(And BTW, if you've ever written a parser you know that
adding support for this is trivial, and it will have zero impact on
runtime performance.)
Then why not support JavaScript as an additional syntax to XTalk, at least
that way it will be consistant. It's not all that difficult either
And my bet still stands -- I'm willing to bet $20 that the code to
parse x = 1 is already in place, but commented out in the RR engine
for historical reasons.
You can email me offlist to arrange payment:-)
The problem with x = 1, is that it breaks a main rule in xtalk in that every
statement
As Dar points out here, the = operator can easily be overloaded. The
reason that C implements the == operator for comparisons is because
C also lets you do something pretty screwy with assignments:
if (c==12) is a comparison between c and 12
if (c=12) assigns 12 to c and then takes the result of
On Sunday, February 8, 2004, at 04:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- for non-english-speaking students, today, the javascript syntax =
the flash syntax = the . syntax = the ECMA syntax = the
standard syntax for programming = is not more difficult than the
xtalk syntax.
It is the same to teach
On 2/9/04 8:02 AM, Dar Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday, February 8, 2004, at 04:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- for non-english-speaking students, today, the javascript syntax =
the flash syntax = the . syntax = the ECMA syntax = the
standard syntax for programming = is not
I imagine it would be a nightmare to 'localize' the syntax to French,
Germanand prone to more bugs... it's human nature...
Though I like the syntax for my own use and for teaching junior
associates (it does help), I think the English orientation might be
somewhat of a weakness in an
On 2/9/04 8:02 AM, Dar Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wonder that myself. If you were going to write for, say, Japanese
users, instead of
set the a of b to c
you would say
b no a wo c ni settei
The grammar is practically opposite.
It would be nice to also support a JavaScript-like:
b.a
On Sunday, February 8, 2004, at 04:07 PM, Doug Lerner wrote:
It would be nice to also support a JavaScript-like:
b.a = c
What could be a concrete example?
(field Potatoes Required).textHeight = 20
Or like this?
field(Potatoes Required).textHeight = 20
Just wondering.
(this stack).textHeight
On 2/9/04 9:07 AM, Dar Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday, February 8, 2004, at 04:07 PM, Doug Lerner wrote:
It would be nice to also support a JavaScript-like:
b.a = c
What could be a concrete example?
(field Potatoes Required).textHeight = 20
Or like this?
On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 01:45 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course with Transcript, the = operator means the same thing that
the ==
operator means in other languages. That probably can't be changed
anymore or
everything wouldn't be backwards compatible. So some other kind of
on soapbox
On Sunday, February 8, 2004, at 07:29 PM, Frank Leahy wrote:
Removing exceptions can simplify xTalk and enhance its power.
You mean try/catch/end try? It might simplify things, but it sure
won't enhance anybody's power. There are numerous places that common
functions can fail in
77 matches
Mail list logo
