Isn't everyone missing the real point? Computers only "understand"
one language: The instruction set for the processor family it belongs
to. But no human (at least no normal human) could program in that
language and produce anything like useful to the masses in any kind
of reasonable time frame.
So, (and I want to stress this point as dramatically as I can) ALL
other language constructs INCLUDING assembly are written so that
humans (at least normal humans) can write programs that are anything
like useful to the masses in any kind of reasonable time frame; In
effect to shield us from the tyranny of the instruction set.
It stands to reason then that the more like a human thinks you can
make that language, the more likely it is that a human can, and even
would attempt to, write programs that are anything like useful to the
masses in any kind of reasonable time frame.
But invariably you give up something with high level languages like
these, because you are beholden to the one who wrote the language for
the kinds of things you can tell the computer to do. This is the crux
of the matter. If we all programmed in assembly, it is unlikely any
of us would ever produce anything, but if we did we could produce
almost anything possible that a computer could do. But since we can't
and won't learn assembly, we depend on the relative simplicity of the
high level language, at the cost of only being able to do what the
developer of the high level language gives us the capability to do.
The more "English like" (or should I be global and say "human like")
the high level language is, the more programmers will even attempt to
write programs that are anything like useful to the masses in any
kind of reasonable time frame. Can I see a show of hands of all the
Revolution programmers that are also proficient enough in C++ to
produce anything? Okay I see a few hands, how about assembly? Anyone?
<crickets chirping in the background>...
In answer then to the original question, is there a more English-like
programming language than Transcript? I would say, probably not. And
if there was, how much would you have to give up in terms of what it
was capable of to use it? Transcript (imho) is an amazing balance of
simplicity and capability unmatched in almost anything else I have seen.
We all have things we would like to see done, or done better, but
there will always be that. What we should be asking ourselves is how
much can we do right now with what we have? It's those kind of
developers that produce things like Galaxy and libDatabase, and even
Revolution itself that make what everyone else does easier or better.
And I will bet good money that if we (Revolution Developers) could
double or triple the user base of Revolution in the next 2 or 3
years, we would see a lot more capabilities roll out of Runtime
Revolution's labs. Maybe the way to do that is to start producing
some really cool apps with it so others can see how productive we are
with it.
Bob Sneidar
IT Manager
Logos Management
Calvary Chapel CM
On Aug 12, 2006, at 10:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Re: OT: Is there a more English-like Programming language
than Transcript?
_______________________________________________
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
