Subject: Drawing a curved shape - 2nd attempt

Randall Lee Reetz randall at
Mon Feb 2 12:53:58 EST 2009


I wrote it (self-optimizing multi-threading) in SuperTalk... but the  
script is standard.  Will look for it and post it when I find it.   
Requires a rather extensive use of the "on idle" handler and some  
rethinking of how one goes about writing looped control structures.

As for raised eyebrows, if you take the time to look closely at the  
way these discussions of new features escalate, you will see that the  
original suggestion posts are not provocative at all... but they are  
always followed by some form of social jamming that is intended to  
make the suggester seem daft, stupid, greedy, and out of place.  It  
is only then that I gather my courage and post an argument pointed  
squarely at the provincialism of the secondary criticism of posts  
that suggest or plead for new features.  The order of events  
matters.  Surely I am not being held retroactively responsible for a  
tertiary rebuttal?  Causal chain and all...


On Feb 2, 2009, at 6:08 AM, Mark Smith wrote:

> Randall, wondering aloud about features is welcome (at least as far  
> as I'm concerned, and I'm sure to most of us), it's just that  
> phrases like "limp xtalk into the present' come off as kind of  
> confrontational. The general style on this list is very much non- 
> confrontational - you wouldn't be the first person to get a raised- 
> eyebrow response to that kind of talk, just please don't take it  
> the wrong way!
> It seems to me that some of the things you talk about would be  
> better addressed on the improve list, rather than the how-to list,  
> but you need an enterprise licence to join that list.
> BTW, self-optimizing multi-threading sounds very interesting - was  
> it in Revolution? If so, anything you can share?
> Best,
> Mark
> On 2 Feb 2009, at 13:26, Randall Reetz wrote:
>> I have never asked for a game server.  I dont build games... Have  
>> never even played one.  Secondly, yes i do keep hoping and praying  
>> and asking for features that would extend the original user-level  
>> programming ethos of allan kay and bill atkenson to the modern  
>> world we live in.  Sockets are to xtalk what a machine shop is to  
>> an erector set.
>> All of you should be agreeing with me, not fighting me.  These  
>> things i ask for are obvious ways for xtalk to do for today's  
>> computing world what smalltalk and hypertalk did for the mid  
>> 1980's.  Namely, to wrap deep functionality into a pedestrian  
>> common english syntax.  To un-socket sockets as it were.  I am  
>> writing deep pattern engine and symantic engine in xtalk, so dont  
>> dare say i am unwilling to go the coding distance.  I have written  
>> self optimized multithreading into xtalk.  I wrote a symantic  
>> indexing system into xtalk.  I have written a full resolution  
>> independent 3D engine in xtalk.  But what i find it dificult to do  
>> is write the same code everyone else is writing just to limp xtalk  
>> into the present.  That goes so counter to the original intent of  
>> xtalk.  How is the rev product threatened by deep thinking people  
>> wondering aloud what features would make xtalk that much more  
>> powerful and contemporary?
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
> subscription preferences:

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list