On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Richard Gaskin <ambassa...@fourthworld.com > wrote:
> The main goal of OL is two-fold: to provide OS API access, and to allow > custom components (libraries, widgets, etc.) to be integrated as smoothly > in usage as engine-native routines and objects. I don't remember it being limited to that. I wish the original blog entry at new language plugins <http://blog.runrev.com/blog/bid/265511/Open-Language> were either still in place, or available through archive.org. It isn't, so all I have to go on is my memory, but I remember being very excited about open language because one of my main concerns about LC is that the language itself has stagnated. Ask an LC developer what makes it so expressive and efficient and they might point to URL syntax (~10 years old) or repeat-for-each (~20 years old) or chunk syntax (pre-dates metacard). I'm confident there is even more powerful english-like abstraction out there that we haven't discovered because we're all used to doing <whatever> the old way. Further, there are many syntactic constructions already available in other languages that we could pull in to LC easily if we had the ability to extend the syntax. That's what I want, and that's what I thought we were getting. Maybe I'm misremembering. _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
