At 11:54 AM +0200 5/27/02, Jean-Michel Lekston wrote: >I said that X-talk (aka hyper-talk) is poor (not powered computer language) >because it is very constrained one.
Transcript is very flexible, and also very powerful. >What about structure ? (Or Class in object point of view) Transcript has chunk syntax which allows for a less formal, more flexible way of handling this. >What about references Built-in. You can pass arguments by reference, and you can reference a property by storing its name in a variable. Finally there is the "do" construct, for the ultimate in flexibility. >What about memory managing? It's taken care of automatically. >What about Multi-threading ? In general, multi-threading slows a computer down (time is spent switching contexts that could have been spent doing actual work). The send...in construct allows some of the same functionality with less overhead. >What about paradigm (event-drive, procedural, GUI oriented. > why stacks, groups, cards are fixed => Closed API... ? What do you actually need? >Is - there a well defined grammar rules (as we can find for most of >language) ? What are you looking for here? >In fact i preferred said that x-talk (hyper-talk) is a simple script/macro >language for event call-back of a GUI RAD Transcript is a full-featured, powerful, easy-to-use language/syntax that also happens to function like a script/macro langauge. -- regards, Geoff Canyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
