Transcript and Dot Notation

[Mark Smith]

I agree. Any extension to transcript should surely be as natural to  
it as possible. Adopting non-xTalk-like syntax wholesale from other  
languages would make any real OO stuff more like using applescript or  
VBScript in Rev, which is fine and useful, but would tend to be  
attractive only to those who already know their stuff, while those  
who don't would most likely ignore the possible benefits available.

Of course, any OO extension to Transcript is going to involve us in  
some kind of learning curve (like the one for those of us coming from  
Hypercard and trying to figure out custom properties), but a  
transcript-like syntax will surely make the curve less steep, and  
therefore taken on by more people.

As Dan points out with the example of SmallTalk, dot notation is not  
necessarily the only or best way to do OOP, however many other  
languages use it. I can remember some thread on the list about using  
"=" as an assignment operator, with some people in favour of it  
simply because they were used to it in other languages. This didn't  
seem like a strong argument to me, and fortunately not to the RunRev  
people, either. (OK, I know it can be used in Global and Local  
declarations, but as some wise man once said "if you think it's  
possible to be completely consistent in everything, then show us by  
example!")


Mark

On 25 Feb 2006, at 16:22, Rob Cozens wrote:

> Hi all--except Mr. X     :{(
>
>> So if Transcript does go object-oriented -- and I hope and believe it
>> will, though it may be an alternative fork rather than a forced  
>> switch
>> -- I hope it *does* in fact adopt dot notation so that all of us who
>> have trained our brains to think in those terms when we create and
>> program with objects will e comfortable doing so.
>>
>>
>
> We have had other conversations along this line, and the thing I  
> find most interesting is that some of the people who readily extoll  
> the virtues of Xtalk syntax also take the lead in suggesting that  
> RRLtd use existing syntax from some other language to implement new  
> features.
>
> Dan wants dot notation, Richard has proposed Visual Basic syntax,  
> some want C notation, etc.
>
> I want Xtalk syntax.  I want my Transcript scripts to read like a  
> novel; not a mathematical formula.  And I believe it is possible.
>
> Did Winkler & Atkinson grab pieces of this syntax and that syntax  
> from other platforms when they created HyperTalk?  My answer: "no,  
> they created a logically integrated syntax that performed most of  
> the same functions as FORTRAN, Basic, Pascal, C, etc. in a more  
> readable and efficient syntax".
>
> Suppose someone reviewed all existing programming languages,  
> determined which has the "best" syntax for each operation, and  
> created a language that combined them.  Would the result be the  
> world's most efficient language or an illogical nightmare?
>
> Additionally, simply incorporating existing syntax from another  
> language dooms Transcript to "same-old, same-old" status and  
> foregoes an opportunity to make it different & better than the  
> competition.  I think Dan & Richard are among the best and  
> brightest among us, and if they were motivated they (and the rest  
> of us) could integrate the features they desire into an Xtalk  
> syntax that fits logically into Transcript.
>
> Sure it's harder than lobbying RRLtd to adopt a syntax one already  
> knows; but the results, IMFO, are worth the extra effort.
>
> Rob Cozens
> CCW, Serendipity Software Company
>
> "And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
> Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
>
> from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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