For Each Anomaly

[Stephen Barncard]

>Down with the experts, long live the inexperienced

Fooey. That's a ridiculous statement.

Everybody's inexperienced in the ways of Rev at 
first. And Rev isn't perfect, but neither is 
Democracy or the English language.

For most of us X-talk speaks to us and we like to 
code that way. A lot of people come to Rev from 
widely diverse areas that have nothing to do with 
'computer science'. So don't assume that anyone 
here is 'better' than you at this. There's not a 
person here that doesn't have 'holes' in their 
knowledge of Rev that they haven't explored. You 
just tons of free support from people that HAVE 
been there. This very forum is one of the most 
appealing features of Rev. (Down with the 
Experts??)

If you're honest enough to call yourself a 
newbie, then pick up whatever you call 'quirks' 
about the language, stop and listen to the 
experts and move on. It like learning French (if 
one speaks "American" or vice versa) or anything 
else.

You learn the quirks and rules. The rules aren't 
there to get in the way of your productivity, 
they are there to show you the limits of the 
tool. Sometimes you have to take a couple of 
minutes in this list and ask questions and not 
depend totally on the docs.  Sometimes you just 
experiment and get it working. There are often 20 
ways to do the same thing.

So messing with the loop variable, I say again, 
is long established rule in PROGRAMMING, and now 
you know. You couldn't reliably do it in  Basic 
on the Apple II, nor in Hypercard, and not now in 
Rev.

  I'm sorry you feel bad that you didn't know. Not 
knowing this fact does not make you 
inexperienced. We all learn stuff every day on 
this list.

For me, a Hypercard coder since 1988, the Rev of 
today is the highest evolution of X-Talks - with 
way fewer or no externals. But it was originally 
Hypercard that put me immediately into a project 
without touching the ground. I was using it 
within hours. Z-Basic took tons of code to make a 
window. The choice was clear.

>I repeat from my first post on the topic:
>"Adding description for every unexpected 
>behaviour is like trying to prevent a breach in 
>a dyke by explaining to the water that it should 
>go somewhere else. If the language would behave 
>as expected, there would be less airquote & bug 
>& airquote reports immediately (and less 
>breaking dykes)."
>
>Down with the experts, long live the inexperienced
>Björnke

-- 


stephen barncard
s a n  f r a n c i s c o
- - -  - - - - - - - - -