On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Thomas Aylott (subtleGradient) wrote:
We're not creating a dictionary here.
The whole point of this tagging system is to allow people to easily find
things.
It doesn't matter if Applescript is really compiled code or not.
It only matters that people would never look for Applescript by going to the
Compiled Languages section. Never.
Sure. But the point is that "interpreted languages" is arguably less
correct than "scripting languages", yet no more likely
to increase findability of the contents than scripting language. If you
aren't improving usability, then why decrease correctness?
Also, if we tag things properly we'll take away a vital pastime of
programmers everywhere? arguing about the finer details of programming
language classification.
Meh. Wander into Lambda the Ultimate some time when a juicy static vs.
dynamic typing brouhaha is in full swing -- those are far more exciting.
William D. Neumann
---
"There's just so many extra children, we could just feed the
children to these tigers. We don't need them, we're not doing
anything with them.
Tigers are noble and sleek; children are loud and messy."
-- Neko Case
Life is unfair. Kill yourself or get over it.
-- Black Box Recorder
_______________________________________________
textmate-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate-dev
