On Feb 21, 2007, at 10:18 AM, James Edward Gray II wrote:
On Feb 21, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Allan Odgaard wrote:
I know 3.a versus 3.b will give rise to debate, and for the more
esoteric languages, there probably is no preconceived notion of
what the language is (like e.g. both Python and AppleScript are
considered scripting languages, despite both of them generally
being compiled).
Most of the "scripting language" advocates are now trying to escape
that name, because it's such a poor fit. The term "dynamic
language" is often preferred by those same people. At RubyConf
2006, Matz recommended we call Ruby an "agile language" in his
keynote address.
James Edward Gray II
But that's part of the problem.
In the bundles themselves we describe what the language is, but when
doing a UI for searching for something, that's how the majority of
people would expect to find those languages.
Maybe Compiled Languages and Interpreted Languages instead?
thomas Aylott — subtleGradient — CrazyEgg — sixteenColors
_______________________________________________
textmate-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate-dev
