Transcript and Dot Notation

[Judy Perry]

What possible competitive advantage does it offer to the company for it to
transform Transcript into yet another bit player in a very major league?

With it being an x-Talk, it offers certain advantages, such as ease of
learning/reading, that are all but nonexistant in your "traditional"
programming languages.  As such, it is a big player in a small league, but
it's almost completely a league of its own, a league that the company has
reported it finds profitable.

If, as we've often discussed, Rev is unable to compete with
C++/Java/dot.notation.flavor.of.the.month because of its very different
paradigm, how would making it over into just another minor OO language
make it more competitive?

I've said it before and will say it again:  If true OO is what you really
want, why not just use one of the bazillion OO languages?  Once Lingo went
down that route, it ceased to be a learnable language for ordinary humans.

And, as for OO being OPTIONAL in Rev, remember that it was optional in
Lingo, too.  Only, every single Lingo book on the market dealt in
dot.speak, not verbose speak.  Code fragments that floated about for
public consumption tended to be dot.speak, not verbose speak.

Remember the guy who not long ago wrote to the list who had problems
possibly with case statements and pWhiches?  What's going to happen when
those new users have a problem and everybody responds in dot.speak?

OPTIONAL dot.speak I fear will end Transcript's natural-language
orientation.

Judy

> >> .this.that.thatotherthing.IsThisParticularDotSupposedToBeAMethodOrAnObject.Sh
> >> ootMeNow