Transcript and Dot Notation

[Judy Perry]

Without personal attacks, (well, as much as is human) my responses are
below:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Dan Shafer wrote:

> Perhaps more to the point, can you name ANY surviving xTalk? Nope.
> They're all pretty much dead except for Transcript. I could argue with
> equal weight and perhaps a tad less vitriol that the *reason* they are
> dead is becuas they didn't adapt to the world of object orientation.
> You pick on the one thing about xTalks that you happen to like and
> declare it the ultimate feature without which the language will die
> but the issue is so much more complex than that.

So, I am puzzled: I have understood you to be at the vanguard of those
supporting x-Talks; the above seems to suggest that Transcript is on life
support because it does NOT support dot.syntax.

Do x-Talks suck then?  If so, why are we all here?

I mean, there are oodles and oodles (if not bazillions) of OO languages
out there. Why are we all here and not there?

If we wanted to be there, we would be, no?  But, no, we're here.  Aren't
we?  I know I am.  Last time I checked, this was still the Rev list, not
the C++/Java/C.dot.syntax.flavour.of.the.month.PLEASE.SHOOT.THE
IDIOT.WHO.INSISTED.ON.THIS CRAP list.

(okay, I'm in a bad mood.  I apologize to Dan for the latter all-caps part
of the dot.syntax above.  It pisses me off when people call me names --
especially when I haven't called them names).  Still, we get the drift,
don't we?

> > If, as you say, dropping support for verbose syntax is "hardly
> > inevitable," can you show a single case in a major surviving x-talk
> > language where this is the case?  What do you know that suggests history
> > will not repeat itself?
> >
> If there were any surviving xTalks this question might even have been
> interesting.

Oh, so, Transcript doesn't really count then, does it?

DOES IT???!!!  Is Transcript not an x-Talk???

Okey-dokey, so, now, not only is my argument "paranoia" or even
"hysteria", not it's  just plain irrelevant?

LET ME QUOTE:

DS:  "If there were any surviving xTalks this question might even have
been interesting."

Gee -- do the good folks in Edinburgh have this insight?  Do they not
understand that they're marketing a completely useless, nonexistent
product?

> > Do you really want to be the father of the end of the last major surviving
> > x-Talk?
> >
> Leave out the word "major." And anyone on this list who knows me --
> which you clearly do not despite repeated efforts on my part to be
> kind to you -- will laugh at the stupidity of that question.

--How many people are laughing?  Wow.  I must be really stupid.  Even
stupider than you thought you were being magnanimously, incredibly
charitably kind to.  Now, I'm not just paranoid or even hysterical; I'm
just plain stupid.  Completely unworthy of your attention.... except that
you see fit to call me.... onlist???

There are
> probably not a lot of people on the planet who have done more to help
> tools like this one survive than me and that's not bragging. I have
> argued strongly against some language pollution that I thought would
> harm Transcript.

--Exactly.  That is why I thought we could agree to disagree.  Until the
name-calling set in, that is.

That we disagree about whether this particular change
> would have a deleterioius effect is -- or should be -- a matter of
> linguistic and academic interest and preference, not personal attack.
>

--So, why again, did you decide to attack me personally for daring to
disagree with you???

Did I not posit arguments that were (a) linguistic and (b) learnable?  Can
you show this?  See the next line below:

> > Either Transcript is an x-Talk or it isn't.
>
> Who says?

--Well, Umm, youz saids... don't you??? in like, every book you've ever
written on the subject???

What body standardizes the definition of "xTalk?" Hell,
> 'xTalk' isn't even a word. The "x" stands for "uinknown" or "generic."
> > Without transparent
> > implementation of OO, there simply is NOT a medium ground.


---Umm..., so, it's like, nothing, or , whatever, which is exactly what I
said it would become if what you propose and others have proposed would
happened to the language:  that it would become a "whatever" language
paradigm.

And,  I'm still waiting to see how this is really a very good and
markedtable idea...


>
> Perhaps you are a programming language compiler expert and you really
> know this. I disagree and I suspect I have at least as much basis for
> my view as you do for yours.

No, indeed, I am fervent in my opinion BECAUSE I have respect for yours!
Because you've offered (I think, please do correct me kindly and with
respect for the facts if I am incorrect) how very difficult it would be
for Transcript to include OO functionalities _transparently_ that I
differ.

But I certainly welcome your ingenuous solution as to how to circumvent
that difficulty and thus support the x-Talk language that you, as no
other, have labored to support.

Judy