Jacque- Thursday, March 24, 2005, 10:25:32 AM, you wrote:
JLG> And you would have reaped the ire of those involved in 20 years of xtalk JLG> legacy. ;) I'm well aware of that. And would gladly shoulder that burden given the chance. We've unlearned other HC habits along the way. "Mark Wieder - he's the guy who made us declare our variables"... now that's a moniker I could live with. JLG> For those of us who have used all the various forms of xtalk over lo JLG> these many years, the lack of variable typing and the ability to use JLG> variables without first declaring them is a major breakthrough feature JLG> of a modern programming language. Actually I'd like variable typing as well <g>. But only when I want it. Otherwise I also like the freedom and the fact that the engine converts everything for me. No more ugly casts. Not declaring variables before use, though... consider on Gimme val1, val2 put val1 * 10 into val3 put val2 * 5 into val5 return val3 + val4 end Gimme where I accidentally typed "val5" instead of "val4" (slip of the finger). You're not going to find this error (if you find it at all) until runtime. The simple addition of the line local val3, val4 and enabling variable checking allows you to catch the error at the time you click the "Apply" button. Why not let the compiler help you? JLG> me and I wonder why they don't just go off and use Basic where it is a JLG> requirement. All that "dimming" really puts me off. <actually it's not, unless you declare "option explicit"> JLG> Is it sloppy programming to use a language as it was intended? Possibly. Look at (shudder) COBOL. Who in their right mind would invent a "continue" statement? -- -Mark Wieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
