Mark Waddingham wrote:
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> Esp. given that "<>" is supported but almost unique to our language..
>
> "<>" is certainly not unique to our language. Indeed see here:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_operator
>
> The use of <> is predominant in Pascal-like and BASIC-like languages.
Agreed. I use qualifiers like "almost" to account for such cases.
>> If we were talking about "==" I could understand. The difference
>> between "=" and "==" in languages that support both accounts for
>> millions of lost hours for developers and end-users due to accidental
>> bugs every year.
>>
>> But "!="? I just don't see the harm. Sometimes accommodating the
>> rest of the world isn't a bad thing.
>
> Isn't that thoroughly inconsistent though? Why is "!=" special?
It isn't. That's my point. It's extremely common. Ordinary. Habit
for many, including Monte. Not special at all. And for that reason I
could think of no reason to exclude it once the work of adding it was
already done and delivered.
>> At a time when I hope we're all keenly sensitive to the need for
>> increased adoption, this seems more of a focus on "We're different"
>> than "We help you get the job done more efficiently".
>
> I'm not sure I see how adding "!=" is going to suddenly open the
> flood-gates and see proportionally more users.
It's possible to dismiss anything using reductio ad absurdum. We could
have a field day with that here, and two clever wordsmiths could have
quite a time of it. But instead I'll try to focus on actionable outcomes.
Of course no single token is going to open any floodgates. But I do
believe it's worth pausing now and then to consider things that are
common in other languages which may remove impediments to learning
LiveCode if adopted here.
Imagine if instead of the fairly common bracket syntax we use for arrays
they had been implemented in something more English-like. Ugh. Arrays
are nicely done here, compact and a joy to use - and extra bonus points
that if you've used associative arrays in nearly any other language you
can grasp them easily in LiveCode. One less thing to unlearn.
LiveCode requires learning uncommon ways of doing things, and in
exchange it offers uncommon productivity. Where something is uncommon
but not truly required, my own inclination is to reconsider it. If
LiveCode were to evolve into the world's first anomaly-free
syntactically pure programming language that achievement would mean
little if only a handful ever use it.
Every healthy project can benefit from having a BDFL, and on the whole
I'm glad your ours. It would be strange if any two people agreed on
everything all of the time. Now and then you and I will have different
opinions. This is one of those times. Even when I disagree, I do not
disrespect. I won't belabor this point further.
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
____________________________________________________________________
ambassa...@fourthworld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
_______________________________________________
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
