Approach to explaining TAOO [was ANN: New Website for TAOO]
see3d at writeme.com
Mon Oct 17 11:50:51 CDT 2005
If I truly have got "it" then I can suggest an approach to explaining
It seems to me that the problem is that you have spent 15 years
building a "do everything I want" program. When you try and explain
it, you end up trying to explain "everything you have wanted" for the
last 15 years. This is next to an impossible task without writing a
book! However, all is not lost. You just need to take us back 15
steps from a technical development point of view.
TAOO is built on a conceptually simple idea that supports the basic
capability to add functionality. Instead of telling us all about the
wonderful functionality you have built on "it", tell us what "it" is
and how we could use "it" to build our own functionality from the
humble beginnings. Then later tell us about just one at a time of
the wonderful things you have added to "it" to solve a problem. Most
important is don't explain anything using terms that are used for OOP
or any other buzzword rich religion. Explain from simple concepts
in normal simple terms that have universal understanding.
At the most primitive level, you are "supporting" a way of defining a
named script, or a named object with a script. You also have a
dictionary of the things that have been defined to make it easy to
find and specify the use of these things.
We all understand how the things in the last paragraph are defined
and used in Rev. How are they different in "it"?
I am not trying to explain TAOO here. I am trying to explain how you
can explain to me and others in a way that can be grasped --one easy
step at a time. Don't explain too much at once. Just start with the
most primitive concept that makes it possible to build on.
If you start this way, and even create a very simple version of "it"
with almost no added capability for others to try out and explore, I
am sure you will get a lot of useful feedback and helpful
participation that you are looking for.
On Oct 17, 2005, at 1:12 AM, MisterX wrote:
> you got it!
> It's not forth programming with stacks though!
> The "name" = object stuff was cleverly left out!
More information about the use-livecode