What is "Open Language"?

[Richmond]

On 24/10/15 22:10, Peter TB Brett wrote:
> On 2015-10-24 18:53, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
>> 2. Isn't the goal so that we can have 10,000 different, often
>> incompatible and sometimes confusing, custom syntax options for doing
>> basic things like setting the rect of a button?
>
> To quote Gilbert & Sullivan: "Well, yes, that's the idea."
>
> Not too different from the status quo, though, is it? I can already 
> modify the bounding box of a button by setting its "left", "right", 
> "top", "bottom", "topLeft", "topRight", "bottomLeft", "bottomRight", 
> "rect", or "rectangle" pseudo-properties.

Those make a lot of sense.

But imagine the sort of other things people do:

"The thingummy-bob over there"

R.
>
> Some people believe that programming languages should be designed in 
> such a way that, for any given task, "There should be one - and 
> preferably only one - obvious way to do it."  This is not the design 
> philosophy of LiveCode.

That is clear: one should not, always, have to drive down the middle of 
the road. However, while it might be useful to drive in the left lane,
the right lane and, occasionally, on the hard shoulder, when one starts 
to drive on the verge, or even in the adjacent field, things tend
to go wrong. So "Open" is as "Open" does; rather like the difference 
between 'freedom' and 'unfettered freedom'.

So, while the design philosophy of LiveCode may be that there may be 
several ways to achieve something, there do still have to be constraints.

Richmond.
>
>                                   Peter
>