Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?
frank at backtalk.com
Mon Feb 9 19:08:02 CST 2004
On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 12:31 AM,
use-revolution-request at lists.runrev.com wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Frank Leahy wrote:
>> Disagreeing right back at you. If you want professionals to use Rev,
>> then you need standard assignment statement syntax -- without them
>> Revolution looks like a hobbyist language rather than a real working
>> language ("oh, it's just HyperTalk, and we all know that wasn't a
>> 'real' language/development environment") And since it's perfectly
>> possible to support "x = 1" without affecting the current "put" and
>> "set" statements, I would argue that they should consider adding it.
> If Transcript were to look just like C et al, what would be its
> comparative advantage??
> Show of hands: Who wants Rev to be as user-friendly as C?
You are about the 15th person who didn't read what I wrote (I'm picking
on you because your message is so short and succinct, thanks).
I suggested ADDING an assignment operator syntax that is commonly used
in essentially every other modern computer language, and that has its
basis in mathematical notation. I didn't say GET RID OF the current
"put" syntax or GET RID OF any other xTalk construct -- I said ADD
support for "x = 1" as AN ALTERNATIVE to "put" -- you get to decide
which you use. (And BTW, if you've ever written a parser you know that
adding support for this is trivial, and it will have zero impact on
Now, for those who have forgotten why I suggested this in the first
place, it was in response to comments about how professional or
un-professional RR appears to those taking a look at it for the first
time. Having "put" as the sole assignment syntax means, IMHO, that
people looking at RR think it's more like HyperCard than less like
HyperCard, when in fact it's a lot less like HyperCard.
There is one other good reason why this syntax should be supported,
because it's a really big pain in the a-- to port algorithms written in
other languages to RR. I'm porting some code that parses the JPEG EXIF
header, and I have to rewrite every frickin' statement from "x += y +
2" to "put x + y + 2 into x".
But let's stop this discussion, ok? No one from RR has piped up to
suggest that they're even considering such a change, so the discussion
And my bet still stands -- I'm willing to bet $20 that the code to
parse "x = 1" is already in place, but commented out in the RR engine
for historical reasons.
More information about the use-livecode