Dependence on Programming Experts

[Robert Sneidar]

I remember the first time I began learning Foxpro syntax. I came  
across x = 5 and thought "What a stupid way of storing a value to a  
variable!" Of course my initial objection was readability as I was  
trying to interpret someone elses code base.

Now I am confronted with converting a LOT of Foxpro code which  
profusely uses the x = 5 syntax, into Revolution, and wish to high  
heaven this form was supported. One less thing to have to convert.

Of course, I could wish ALL Foxpro syntax was supported by Revolution  
so NO code conversion was necessary on my part...

HEY! What a great idea! When can I expect this update? ;-)

I guess the point is, even I alone want conflicting things, depending  
on what is good for me at the moment. I love Revolution now precisely  
BECAUSE the syntax IS so readable. If I had to learn another C++ like  
language I would never go near it. Revolution appeals to a subset of  
programmers who want to produce viable custom apps quickly and  
economically. I don't think anyone would dream of producing Microsoft  
Office with it.

I would rather see resources spent on things everyone agrees we need.  
Better table tools, easier database access, not gonna rehash those  
here. But the state I find Revolution in now is VERY usable. I can  
see the light at the end of the tunnel for what I want to do. With  
Filemaker, the tunnel kept caving in on me. With Foxpro, they boarded  
up the tunnel. With C++ the tunnel entrance is at the top of mount  
Everest. With Fourth Dimension you could see the light all right, but  
they wanted to charge me a fee for everyone I brought with me into  
the tunnel.

With Revolution, I can get there from here, and then remember how I  
did it, and not pay every time I or someone else makes the trip. In  
other words, all the tools are there, and it's simple enough to go  
back and recode if I have to, and economical in the bargain. I can  
live with the syntax:

put "Kudos for runrev" into mThisIsCool. -- :-)

Bob Sneidar
IT Manager
Logos Management
Calvary Chapel CM

On Jul 12, 2006, at 7:50 AM, use-revolution-request at lists.runrev.com  
wrote:

>>
>> In terms of implementation, the former is fairly trivial but the
>> latter would require quite a big change in the parser logic, me
>> thinks.
>
> Oh, I'll not argue that. I've come to accept that certain things
> won't be implemented due to limitations of engineering time. What I
> don't agree with is that having a more succinct syntax available
> would somehow harm the verbose version of the language. I also don't
> agree that x = 5 is somehow less readable or understandable than its
> more wordy counterpart.
>
> --
> Troy