Transcript should be called Transcript

[Richmond Mathewson]

Well, I 'googled' revTalk, and apart from the chap
with the snow-mobile  :)

I got lots of "English-like programming language". . .

Which, while, possibly, attracting some people,

WILL drive away quite a few more.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Facetious section following.
----------------------------------------------------------------

RichmondTalk; the new English-like programming language.

Examples code in RichmondTalk  ('RTalk' for REAL programmers):

Get me my coffee!

Please, put sugar in my coffee.

This tastes like muck.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Serious point approaching.
----------------------------------------------------------------

My 'RichmondTalk', apart from antagonising my wife,
would not do much good anywhere. However, it is
"English-like".

Now we all know that some programming languages look like
goddledygook except to the initiated . . .

However, the language used in Runtime Revolution (writes he, delicately
sidestepping the controversy) is nothing like 'RichmondTalk', and
nothing like Zilog.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all; in computer programming languages everything
must be explicitly stated, while in human languages so much
is implicit, or is encoded in non-verbal ways.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

IFF, Runtime Revolution want to carry on appealing to the
Saturday-afternoon hobbyist crowd then 'English-like' might
be OK.

BUT, I wonder (apart from the Las Vegas Drive-In Wedding Chapel)
how many people who are prepared to pay £125 are Saturday-afternoon
hobbyists.

While I DON'T think revTalk sounds like kiddy-time (although it does
sound a bit like the Synod of the Church of Scotland), I do think
that the continued emphasis on 'English-like' maybe a mistake . . .

especially as so much of the more recherche revTalk scripts look
nothing like English. . .  :)