Is Transcript's English orientation a plus or minus?

[Peter T. Evensen]

Supporting JavaScript is an interesting idea.  I probably wouldn't used it, 
but I wonder if it would bring others to Revolution.

Authorware 7 added support for writing scripts in JavaScript instead of the 
Authorware scripting language.  Not sure why they decided to do that, 
unless they thought it might entice programmers to the Authorware 
camp...  Of course they had to add some Authorware specific objects so you 
could access everything in JS.

At 08:09 PM 2/9/2004, you wrote:
> >(And BTW, if you've ever written a parser you know that
> >adding support for this is trivial, and it will have zero impact on
> >runtime performance.)
>Then why not support JavaScript as an additional syntax to XTalk, at least
>that way it will be consistant. It's not all that difficult either
>http://www.mozilla.org/js/spidermonkey/
>
>OSA supports multiple languages, so does .NET, and HyperCard used to support
>Applescript. It is the framework, the easy way that you can write an app in
>a few minutes with a familier easy to use visual object model that matters
>like Doug said.
>
>These languages are just tools and some people find some tools easier than
>others. Personally I would rather support JavaScript and call it JavaScript
>then impact the readability of the XTalk language for others. AFAIK
>Macromedia didn't scrap lingo but added support for Javascript.
>
>There are many things that can be added to improve the transcript language
>and I'm all for it but prefer to discuss on the improve-list or a list set
>up like the old XTalk list.
>
>Tuviah

Peter T. Evensen
http://www.PetersRoadToHealth.com