Chipp: Thank you for your many replies to my questions. I'll try to take your word regarding your programming language recommendation, but I really don't yet understand why you or Rodney feel this way. Object orientation has always made complete sense to me - the encapsulation of very small functions and their assembly into larger components. Traditional programming describes a sequence of events, detail by detail instead of an assemblage of simple parts. This seems counter-intuitive to me. As I understand it, Transcript is not object oriented. It may have syntax that resembles English, but the construction of systems is what I am aiming at and it seems natural to define a system in terms of itty bitty parts that combine together to make bigger and more complex things. Think of the Model T car. Pretty useful, but really not all that complex considering it is made up of merely 300 fairly simple parts. Looked at a part at a time, creating a Model T seems quite within practical limits.
Greg Smith -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Dependence-on-Programming-Experts-tf1893108.html#a5195760 Sent from the Revolution - User forum at Nabble.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
