[Slightly OT?] Why It's Hard to Explain Rev

[Erin D. Smale]

TJ Frame wrote:

> That generally gets people up to speed with the understanding that Rev is
>not a flavor of Java, C++, Visual Basic etc. which a lot of people seem to
>imediately assume.
>
As someone new to Rev, I can say that:

(1) When I read on the Rev website that it was unlike Java, C++, or VB, 
my interest in Revolution increased about tenfold--from an ease of use 
standpoint, this is an appealing draw. I've used those languages with 
mixed success--given enough time one can always make them do what you 
want, but who has enough time?

(2) My next concern was power and ability; a look at the command and 
function list made it clear that Rev could handle pretty much anything I 
would need it to do. In Dan's book, this was brought home when he wrote 
(I'm paraphrasing) that Rev works for about 99% of the applications he 
writes and that he probably wouldn't use Rev to monitor nuclear reactor 
temperature in real time, but then again, he wouldn't use C++, Java, or 
VB either.

(3) The real benefit I see in Rev is its Property Inspector and use of 
Transcript. Property Inspector reminds me of the Properties panel in VB, 
which made it very easy to control appearance, behaviour, positioning, 
format, etc. Transcript (and I hope the MAC folks will forgive me on 
this) reminds me of REXX, which I think was a great innovation in 
'normal language' programming. When I did the tutorial on the ask/put 
commands, it was REXX all over, which is good.

My description of Rev is an RAD tool that lets you construct a GUI as 
easy as with VB, make it functional with normal language code, and work 
with all the files, databases, and I/O devices you'd expect it to. Oh, 
it lets you compile for Windows, MAC, and 'NIX, as well.

Now I just got myself all excited to program... :)

Cheers,
-Erin