Dan Shafer wrote:
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.
Agreed. While there's been no public commitment on this topic from the
mother ship, what hints we've been given suggest that the implementation
would include OOP capabilities as OPTIONS for the scripter.
Nearly every discussion about this has been in terms of OPTIONS, so I'm
not sure why there's this perception that new OPTIONS will be forced on
people who choose not to use them.
To use a current example, regex is an OPTION. If you don't like it you
can parse strings using more verbose syntax.
As for dot-notation, I find the strongest resistance come from those who
don't use languages in which it's supported. This isn't to suggest that
it's superior for all uses (nor is even OOP *always* superior to
anything else; everything has trade-offs), but if we see OOP extensions
to the language it would, as you note, make it unusually difficult to
write and even more difficult to learn if it didn't use at least a few
common OOP conventions.
Not everything that isn't Transcript is always wrong. Sometimes there's
a lot to learn from alternatives....
--
Richard Gaskin
Managing Editor, revJournal
_______________________________________________________
Rev tips, tutorials and more: 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
