Transcript should be called Transcript

[DunbarX at aol.com]

There was a short thread just a little while ago where it was mentioned 
that the name of the language itself was important. That is, in order to be 
taken seriously, to compete with C++ or Fortran, in other words to break away 
from the hobby-like persona of Hypertalk, the name of the language had to 
convey power.

Had to, since it did not appear arcane in structure and syntax, at least be 
named like it was raw machine code.

Forget substance.

HT was saddled with "scripting" instead of "programming" (note my use of 
quoted literals)   to make it seem less daunting. On purpose, imagine. This 
greatly contributed to its relegation to being kids stuff. "Hypertalk" already 
sounded like a skateboard. It was the "Hyper", I guess.

Forget substance. (note the verbosity). Mention fun or elegance at your 
peril; it will not be taken seriously.

Human beings (in my opinion the worst sort of people) probably need the 
language to have a power name. Sort of like a power suit. I spent an evening 
playing Rev with a "real" programmer who never heard of it. He loved it, 
asking me about inheritance and polymorphism. We wrote gadgets ALL night, playing 
especially with expression evaluation, which blew him away. He learned 
fast. Really fast. One convert.

I vote for Transcript. It already exists and is no more homey than Java. It 
is a strong, no-nonsense name.

Craig Newman


In a message dated 8/13/09 5:53:11 AM, m.schonewille at economy-x-talk.com 
writes:


> I don't know, Sims. I think it was changed into Revolution, but I have 
> also heard revTalk. Most of the time I speak of Transcript, though.
>