Transcript and Dot Notation

[Dick Kriesel]

Is there a Transcript implementation of dot syntax?  Or how do non-dot
people learn about the benefits of dots?  If the dot folks could wrap the
dots within Transcript handlers, maybe they could offer a dot library, like
libDot.  Or could a macro language do the trick?  What do dots enable that
Transcript does not?

Looking forward to more good humor on the list.

The Entourage spell checker suggests replacing libDot with libido.

-- Dick 


On 2/25/06 10:26 PM, "Judy Perry" <jperryl at ecs.fullerton.edu> wrote:

> Scott,
> 
> Creating a .notation of Rev will NOT keep strict x-Talkers happy.  I may
> be the most vocal opponent, but I suspect I am far, far, from the only
> one.
> 
> And, well, probably *everyone's* happy that I'm not in charge... ;-)
> 
> Judy
> 
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Scott Kane wrote:
> 
>> Judy,
>> The Mac end of development is pretty much cornered by Rev,
>> RealBasic, QT C++ and a few also-rans.  Many developers from
>> .notation backgrounds (Delphi, VB, C++ Builder and more recently
>> .Net) would jump at the chance to program for the Mac if they
>> didn't have to learn a new language construct - which to them
>> Revolution certainly is.  RealBasic uses .Notation - but it's
>> buggy, unstable and really rather crude (IMHO).  If a development
>> platform like Rev existed that had .Notation it would be a tremendous
>> boon to the Mac software community as it would be quicker and easier
>> to get up to speed (obvious user interface issues would still be a
>> learning curve - but then so it is anybody writing for Mac the first
>> time
>> using Rev).  Now - if I was running RunRev (and you can all be eternally
>> glad I'm not <g>) I'd seriously look at creating a new product that did
>> exactly that.  A .Notation version of Rev.  That would keep the
>> X-Talkers
>> happy and would bring in new blood - much faster - IMHO - than Rev does.
>> I've recommended Rev to several developers who work with Windows
>> .notation
>> platforms.  They have all been scared off by transcript as it is as
>> alien
>> to them as is .notation to many transcript people.  Interestingly they
>> have all also reject RealBasic (to buggy), QT C++ (to fragmented) and
>> several new IDE's currently in the initial stages of release.  I really
>> do believe RunRev could increase their market share by a larger factor
>> considering by considering this issue.
>> 
>> It's a compromise.  X-Talks for those that want it or .notation for
>> those
>> that do not.  It's not a far stretch as many development platform
>> companies
>> (Borland and MS for example) do exactly that with, for example object
>> Pascal, C++ etc
>> all under their wing.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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