Transcript and Dot Notation

Phil Davis davis.phil at comcast.net
Fri Feb 24 17:03:19 EST 2006


Hey, Andre, I like this!
Phil Davis


Andre Garzia wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> taking the risk of sounding naive, why can't we deal with objects the  
> way we deal with custom props?
> 
> for example imagine the following Traffic Light  object with  properties 
> and methods:
> 
> TrafficLight.stopColor             --- Red
> TrafficLight.attentionColor     --- Yellow
> TrafficLight.goColor                --- Green!
> TrafficLight.interval                 --- the interval for the cycle  of 
> yellow to red, for example 10 secs.
> TrafficLight.cycleInterval        --- the period the traffic light  
> stays green or red before cycling, for example 45 secs.
> 
> Methods:
> 
> TrafficLight.go  -- Starts with go.
> TrafficLight.stop -- Go to stop....
> 
> So why can't we do transcript-ish things like:
> 
> set the stopColor of TrafficLight to red
> 
> set the interval of TrafficLight to 20 secs
> 
> and call methods like
> 
> send "go" to traffic light...
> 
> This would still be verbose enough to fell like transcript and maybe  it 
> could address the problem of transforming transcript into a weird  lingo 
> like language. Although I think that the parser for those  things would 
> be a little hard...
> 
> anyway, Mark should have better thoughts than me on this...
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 24, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Judy Perry wrote:
> 
>> 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.IsThisParticularDotSupposedToBeAMethodOrA 
>>>>> nObject.Sh
>>>>> ootMeNow
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 




More information about the Use-livecode mailing list