All decent IDEs have a robust set of programming support, and resource and 
project management affordances.  What matters, beyond the obvious differences 
defined by the language an IDE supports, and what therefore sets one IDE above 
another, is how well an IDE matches the personality of its language and target 
customer's use style.  This,  customer support, and staying contemporary with 
the changing world, is the arena in which rev competes and the sphere of 
influence about which it can rightfully brag.  Does run-rev out xtalk other 
xtalk IDEs?  But the question of whether xtalk is, as a category, a worthy 
development choice, well that is a categorical debate and has little to do with 
run-rev specifically.  An interpreted script-based language is a fundamentally 
different animal than a compiled language.  I have always been a big fan of 
natural language syntax programming.  I don't program for the complexity of the 
process.  I program for aptitude of the finished product.  I bicycle for the 
pain cause pain on my bicycle equals physical fitness.  But I program towards 
an end, and that end isn't some sort of macho need for pain.  Ultimately, I 
hope to find a product I can have a gentlemans conversation with and it does 
the heavy lifting, building the logic while we talk in broad poetic terms.  
Until then, there is xtalk.  Has any xtalk support company really kept up with 
the potential of the pioneering direction initiated by smalltalk and hypercard? 
 I don't think anyone has come close.  But, the other languages are even 
further behind.  Have you tried C or java or lisp or how about a functional 
language???? Holy crap!  I don't hate "real" programmers, sometimes they dial 
in my intent after I have sketched it out in xtalk.  That is how I see xtalk.  
As a rapid prototyping tool.  Maybe the prototype is enough to run mission 
critical tasks for years.  Sometimes it helps me see what not to do tomorrow.  
But mostly it lowers the pain bar exposing a far larger set of solutions for 
the same input of time and effort.

As for the effort needed to build and maintain an interpreted execution 
environment... Well it is nothing less than what a compiler does except that it 
has to work line by line in real time at rates indistinguishable from machine 
binary.  Almost impossible.  And none of that comes free from apple or xerox 
(none legally anyway).  But at this level again there is plenty of competition. 
 Javascript, perl, python, visual basic.  Hell, many compiled languages now 
come in IDEs which allow an interpreted interactive development mode.  What 
sets xtalk apart is the pre-built widget objects and high level functions that 
can be called and controlled through intuitive english like phrases.  That and 
the program shell (stack) which handles the arcane and mundane so that the 
author can get down to the creation of domain solutions and not computer 
science.  In my case, the domain is computer science, and xtalk works just fine.

randall
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to