Transcript and Dot Notation

[Judy Perry]

Amen, Rob.

If it is OO *capabilities* that are desired, then fine: just provide them
in a natural-language manner (e.g., keep it transparent).

But the language paradigm simply cannot be allowed to be converted from a
focused, internally-consistent one into the mishm-mash of "whatever" (VB
syntax?  sure,  use it in this context; want dot.sytax for OO?  sure!  use
it here.. don't like the words stack, card etc.? heck, call them plates
and saucers and, well, whatever).

It simply will cease to be a coherent language at that point.  And,
whatever it will be, an x-Talk it will not.

Judy

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Rob Cozens wrote:

> 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.