Thanks Richard, Actually I like the idea it's exactly what Bret Victor said was needed in languages I post this link again nobody commented on it the last time
Are you listening Mark? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUv66718DII Still would like to know if the additional parsers/lexers ideas have any traction as a crowdfunding to the python/Javascript/Ruby people - they would probably pay for something that spit out the code they needed to run a Gui on desktop - NO QT - it's a dog's breakfast of calls, maybe you can program lots of stuff with it - but I can also build a house out of lolly sticks and spit. Regards lagi On 27 June 2017 at 19:19, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > Lagi Pittas wrote: > > We are still awaiting the open language that was promised. >> >> Now I don't know exactly how that will work in the sense is it going to be >> all or nothing - a free for all where you can add/change syntax more like >> a souped up preprocessor, or allow for change to a different language >> (python, Ruby, php on a per procedure/function basis or the easier first >> step a script only stack in the language of your choice. >> >> Everyone can have their cake and eat it. >> > > I don't know when OL will be available or how it'll work. I only know one > thing it won't support, based on an earlier conversation with Mark > Waddingham: R-style arguments (similar in many respects to CSS values). > > In R, things like the plot command have reasonably-useful defaults, so > that you can just pass in data with nothing else and get a useful result. > > But if you want to tailor it you pass arguments in as name-value pairs, > e.g.: > > plot(cars, type="o", col="blue", ylim=c(0,12)) > > What I like about that is I'm free from having to remember parameter > order, which also means I don't need to add a hundred commas if I want to > pass in a value for the 101st param. > > With name-value pairs I can include only the options I want, and in any > order. > > Extra bonus points that the purpose of any argument is made explicit by > including its name. If I see "o" I don't need to count commas and guess > about what that applies to, I know very clearly looking at the name > provided with it that it governs the plot type. > > This may be even more verbose than xTalk for handlers with just one or two > args. > > And as much as I like it in R, I'm not sure I would advocate it in an > xTalk as any sort of necessity. It might be ideal for certain types of > commands (oh how I'd love it with "export"), but is so unusual compared to > most other languages that it may just increase the learning curve for most > folks. > > I bring it up here not as a recommendation, but just as a sort of "think > REALLY different" exercise as we consider alternative syntax > possibilities... > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
