Richmond wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all; in computer programming languages everything
must be explicitly stated, while in human languages so much
is implicit, or is encoded in non-verbal ways.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IFF, Runtime Revolution want to carry on appealing to the
Saturday-afternoon hobbyist crowd then 'English-like' might
be OK.
BUT, I wonder (apart from the Las Vegas Drive-In Wedding Chapel)
how many people who are prepared to pay £125 are Saturday-afternoon
hobbyists.
I agree that the scripting audience once identified as "the inventive
user" is largely mythic in the modern world; such personality types
exist but in the post-HyperCard/post-BASIC world are more attracted to
the many available point-and-click systems for the specific tasks they
might be interested in. Long gone are the days when buying a computer
always meant learning to write your own programs.
Modern scripters probably already know a language, or two or three, and
chances are at least one of those is JavaScript.
So why would "English-like" appeal to them?
Because the true cost of using a new language isn't the IDE price. Far
more expensive is the time it takes to learn the new language. If a
scripter can grok Rev in far less time than it would take her to pick up
any other second language, Rev's chances of being that second language
increase.
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World
Revolution training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
_______________________________________________
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
