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
_______________________________________________
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
