Transcript and Dot Notation

[Dan Shafer]

I don't disagree, Jonathan, but if you apply that logic to
object-orientation you find yourself in a syntax soup that is
difficult to resolve and leads to huge slowdowns in performance.

So if you vote to keep the language simple, you're voting to keep it
non-object-oriented. I'm OK with that but I vastly prefer that we take
an OO fork at this point.

On 2/24/06, Jonathan Lynch <jonathandlynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> I love transcript.
>
> It works the way I think.
>
> A script like:
>
> put "Don't screw up Transcript" into field "What RunRev Should Do" is just
> very easy to conceive.
>
>
>
> With transcript like it is, I spend my mental energy thinking about how my
> program is going to work and interface, not translating my natural thoughts
> into statements like:
>
>  .this.that.thatotherthing.IsThisParticularDotSupposedToBeAMethodOrAnObject.ShootMeNow
>
>
> So, I vote for keeping transcript verbose and easy.
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html