Missing properties

Geoff Canyon gcanyon at gmail.com
Wed Dec 10 16:12:38 EST 2014


On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com
> wrote:

> The main goal of OL is two-fold:  to provide OS API access, and to allow
> custom components (libraries, widgets, etc.) to be integrated as smoothly
> in usage as engine-native routines and objects.


I don't remember it being limited to that. I wish the original blog entry
at new language plugins
<http://blog.runrev.com/blog/bid/265511/Open-Language> were either still in
place, or available through archive.org.

It isn't, so all I have to go on is my memory, but I remember being very
excited about  open language because one of my main concerns about LC is
that the language itself has stagnated. Ask an LC developer what makes it
so expressive and efficient and they might point to URL syntax (~10 years
old) or repeat-for-each (~20 years old) or chunk syntax (pre-dates
metacard).

I'm confident there is even more powerful english-like abstraction out
there that we haven't discovered because we're all used to doing <whatever>
the old way. Further, there are many syntactic constructions already
available in other languages that we could pull in to LC easily if we had
the ability to extend the syntax.

That's what I want, and that's what I thought we were getting. Maybe I'm
misremembering.



More information about the use-livecode mailing list