LCB

[Mike Kerner]

What I read is that you are saying that you prefer LCB because it is more
of a traditional language.  I am completely the other way.  Traditional
languages turn me off.  So, for someone who can choose any tool there is,
but chooses LC, why LCB for libraries over LCS?

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Peter TB Brett <peter.brett at livecode.com>
wrote:

> On 30/07/2016 17:52, Mike Kerner wrote:
>
>> The thing I don't have my brain wrapped around, yet, is why one would use
>> the LCB library-building functionality instead of building a library
>> stack.  I'm interested in what you're doing, Trevor, and how you're using
>> LCB, as I have ideas on how to make adopting LCB easier, for me, anyway.
>>
>
> I prefer writing libraries in LCB because:
>
> - LCB libraries aren't in the message path; they get selected for dispatch
> in the same way that engine commands do
>
> - I find LCB libraries easier to test (built in unit test syntax)
>
> - LCB has block scoped, strongly-typed variables
>
> - LCB lets you pass handlers around as values
>
> - LCB has lists
>
>                                  Peter
>
> --
> Dr Peter Brett <peter.brett at livecode.com>
> LiveCode Technical Project Manager
>
> LiveCode 2016 Conference https://livecode.com/edinburgh-2016/
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>



-- 
On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth
On the second day, God created the oceans.
On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours,
   and did a little diving.
And God said, "This is good."