Andy's comments and positioning...

[Christopher Mitchell]

That seems to have been the attitude starting day one of my first uni 
CS class, and among all the self-taught programmers of a variety of 
that paradigm language.

The argument is, from my best friend the Java and Flash programmer "but 
I could do that in Java" or "That would look better in Flash."

I usually respond to him that I'm cat'ing all the contents of The 
Matrix DVD out to my printer and will mail it to him.  Once he types it 
all in, I hope he enjoys the movie.

I have heard from him and others time and time again "but I can do that 
in [X]" ... He goes to great lengths to learn the newer (much better 
looking) gui toolkits for Java and then he figures since he knows how 
to do it, he doesn't need to look at any other option for making the 
GUI by an easier method.  (one that may have been available in the 
first place).

I am like this too, sometimes, though.  we all are.  Often if I know 
only one way to get somewhere, I will drive that way every time.  
Someone else might know a way that cuts out 10 miles of driving, but 
I'm already comfortable with "my way."  it is for this reason that I 
would stand behind the argument that changing the xTalk/Transcript 
syntax to make it more feasible to C-paradigm programmers is 
inappropriate.  Having Rev installed on my powerbook does not erase GCC 
should I be so inclined...

Yours,
Chris

On Feb 9, 2004, at 8:02 AM, Rob Cozens wrote:
>
>
> If memory serves, none of these "standard" statements would pass a 
> FORTRAN, COBOL, PL/1, Pascal, or Modula compiler or a BASIC 
> interpreter.
>
> Must C syntax prevail for a language to be non-"beginner-ish"?