On 10/24/2015 1:51 PM, Richmond wrote:
as people are NOT computers, not vice-versa, I cannot see how an "Open
Language"
= with Human-like logic and endlessly extensible in a human-like fashion
is ever going to be possible.
Funny you bring that up, I just read this article minutes ago:
<http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/23/coding-academies-are-nonsense/>
To quote: "Who needs to code when you can use visual building blocks or
even plain English to describe intent? Advances in natural-language
processing and conceptual modeling will remove the need for traditional
coding from app development. Software development tools will soon
understand what you mean versus what you say."
So not everyone agrees with you.
The remarks about natural English in the article make me think LC ought
to be more prominent.
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that "someone" went 'off at the mouth' a
bit during
the Kickstarter and promised things that, either, they had no intention of
keeping, or promised
things that, really, they didn't realise would involve them in so many unseen
complexities that
they would be, effectively, unrealisable.
I know Mark Waddingham pretty well, and I've never heard him propose
anything that he didn't already have a good idea how to accomplish.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
_______________________________________________
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
