Mark,
I wrote it (self-optimizing multi-threading) in SuperTalk... but the
script is standard. Will look for it and post it when I find it.
Requires a rather extensive use of the "on idle" handler and some
rethinking of how one goes about writing looped control structures.
As for raised eyebrows, if you take the time to look closely at the
way these discussions of new features escalate, you will see that the
original suggestion posts are not provocative at all... but they are
always followed by some form of social jamming that is intended to
make the suggester seem daft, stupid, greedy, and out of place. It
is only then that I gather my courage and post an argument pointed
squarely at the provincialism of the secondary criticism of posts
that suggest or plead for new features. The order of events
matters. Surely I am not being held retroactively responsible for a
tertiary rebuttal? Causal chain and all...
Randall
On Feb 2, 2009, at 6:08 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
Randall, wondering aloud about features is welcome (at least as far
as I'm concerned, and I'm sure to most of us), it's just that
phrases like "limp xtalk into the present' come off as kind of
confrontational. The general style on this list is very much non-
confrontational - you wouldn't be the first person to get a raised-
eyebrow response to that kind of talk, just please don't take it
the wrong way!
It seems to me that some of the things you talk about would be
better addressed on the improve list, rather than the how-to list,
but you need an enterprise licence to join that list.
BTW, self-optimizing multi-threading sounds very interesting - was
it in Revolution? If so, anything you can share?
Best,
Mark
On 2 Feb 2009, at 13:26, Randall Reetz wrote:
I have never asked for a game server. I dont build games... Have
never even played one. Secondly, yes i do keep hoping and praying
and asking for features that would extend the original user-level
programming ethos of allan kay and bill atkenson to the modern
world we live in. Sockets are to xtalk what a machine shop is to
an erector set.
All of you should be agreeing with me, not fighting me. These
things i ask for are obvious ways for xtalk to do for today's
computing world what smalltalk and hypertalk did for the mid
1980's. Namely, to wrap deep functionality into a pedestrian
common english syntax. To un-socket sockets as it were. I am
writing deep pattern engine and symantic engine in xtalk, so dont
dare say i am unwilling to go the coding distance. I have written
self optimized multithreading into xtalk. I wrote a symantic
indexing system into xtalk. I have written a full resolution
independent 3D engine in xtalk. But what i find it dificult to do
is write the same code everyone else is writing just to limp xtalk
into the present. That goes so counter to the original intent of
xtalk. How is the rev product threatened by deep thinking people
wondering aloud what features would make xtalk that much more
powerful and contemporary?
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
