On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Mark Schonewille < m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com> wrote:
> Hi Geoff, > > While this looks very nifty, it definitely isn't easier to program. > LiveCode is much easier (IMHO). We should never be able to do this with > LiveCode, simply because this isn't how xTalk languages function. > I didn't say it was easier. It's more powerfully expressive. I'm not advocating for AppleScript over xTalk, just admiring this syntax's expressive capability. xTalk shouldn't be static. It's not as english-like or expressive as it could be. I still hold out hope (despite the disappearance of supporting documentation) that the new definable syntax features will be able to do more than just obscure object hybrids and translate system-level access, and give *those who wish to* the ability to experiment with actually extending xTalk, something that hasn't been done much in the last twenty years. One important difference is that AppleScript uses typed variables and even > typed data and objects, while in an xTalk language everything is a string > (except for arrays perhaps, which are constructs of strings). I consider > this an advantage of xTalks. > Everything can be *treated* as a string. As far as I know: put 5 into x Does not result in x being "5". And after that: add 3 to x Does not require the engine to cast x from a string to a number so that it can add 3 to it. > If you really like this way of programming, you can create > Cocoa-AppleScript applications with XCode, which I actually consider a very > interesting way of programming, but I'm happy that I can use LiveCode next > to AppleScript. >> >> I have written less than 50 lines of AppleScript in the last fifteen years, so apart from small projects I'm unlikely to go back. _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode