Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus? (was Andy'scomments and positioning...)

[Doug Lerner]

On 2/9/04 8:02 AM, "Dar Scott" <dsc at swcp.com> wrote:

> 
> On Sunday, February 8, 2004, at 04:11 AM, opus.species at wanadoo.fr wrote:
> 
>> - for non-english-speaking students, today, the "javascript" syntax =
>> the "flash" syntax = the "." syntax = the "ECMA" syntax = "the
>> standard syntax for programming" = is not more difficult than the
>> xtalk syntax.
>> It is the same to teach and to learn "the property of myObjetc" than
>> "myObject.property". The argument xTalk is easy was true 10 years ago,
>> no more today.
>> I am sure of that even for 12-15 years french speaking kids ; i do not
>> know for english-speaking kids.
> 
> In responding to Freak L.'s suggestion, I had ignored this.
> 
> If I read Claude's comments right, the English-like syntax adds
> nothing.  This stops short of saying it gets in the way.
> 
> Though I like the syntax for my own use and for teaching "junior
> associates" (it does help), I think the English orientation might be
> somewhat of a weakness in an global sense.  I don't really know and I
> don't think I'm much of a judge.
> 
> Dar Scott

I was wonder that myself. If you were going to write for, say, Japanese
users, instead of 

set the a of b to c

you would say

b no a wo c ni settei

The grammar is practically opposite.

It would be nice to also support a JavaScript-like:

b.a = c

notation

doug