On Feb 21, 2007, at 10:18 AM, James Edward Gray II wrote:
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.
On Feb 21, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Thomas Aylott (subtleGradient) wrote:
Maybe "Interpreted Language" instead of scripting language.
The whole point of this tagging system is to allow people to easily
find things.
On Feb 21, 2007, at 3:18 PM, William D. Neumann wrote:
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?
On Feb 21, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Charilaos Skiadas wrote:
Yes I agree that "scripting language" is a lot more closer to where
people would expect to find Ruby, Shell, Applescript etc.
Personally, I vote for "Scripting languages"
That's where I would expect to find Ruby, Perl, Applescript, etc...
From what I can tell, that seems less inaccurate than "Interpreted"
and much more likely to be findable.
thomas Aylott — subtleGradient — CrazyEgg — sixteenColors
_______________________________________________
textmate-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate-dev
