On Feb 21, 2007, at 3:18 PM, William D. Neumann wrote:
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?
Yes I agree that "scripting language" is a lot more closer to where
people would expect to find Ruby, Shell, Applescript etc. For a lot
of people, "writing a script" is the first thing that comes to mind
for all three of these. Sure, we could build huge wonderful worlds in
all three of them, perhaps easier in some than in others, but then
again we could write scripts in C as well.
By "script" I guess I mean something like "short useful program that
automates tasks for me".
Haris
_______________________________________________
textmate-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate-dev
