I don't disagree, Jonathan, but if you apply that logic to object-orientation you find yourself in a syntax soup that is difficult to resolve and leads to huge slowdowns in performance.
So if you vote to keep the language simple, you're voting to keep it non-object-oriented. I'm OK with that but I vastly prefer that we take an OO fork at this point. On 2/24/06, Jonathan Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I love transcript. > > It works the way I think. > > A script like: > > put "Don't screw up Transcript" into field "What RunRev Should Do" is just > very easy to conceive. > > > > With transcript like it is, I spend my mental energy thinking about how my > program is going to work and interface, not translating my natural thoughts > into statements like: > > > .this.that.thatotherthing.IsThisParticularDotSupposedToBeAMethodOrAnObject.ShootMeNow > > > So, I vote for keeping transcript verbose and easy. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author http://www.shafermedia.com Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought" >From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html _______________________________________________ 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
