Someone asked me privately if my original response to this thread was in opposition to the inclusion of ECMA compliance in Transcript.

For the record, my answer is "No, I posted in opposition to using JavaScript syntax to accomplish this."

Every development platform I have learned was designed around a unifying syntax. The one exception was the Bourne (sp?) shell to Berkeley Unix/C. It is a prime example of a collection of commands without unifying syntax: the same qualifier had different meaning when appended to different commands, and different commands used different qualifiers for the same purpose. No wonder my colleagues (Berkeley CS grads) referred to it as "guru friendly" at best and "user hostile" at worst.

IMFO, dumping bits of JavaScript, or any other non-xTalks syntax into Transcript rather than extending the natural xTalk dialect can only hurt Revolution in the long run.
--


Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company
http://www.oenolog.net/who.htm

"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."

from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Reply via email to