Transcript and/or ECMA - guess who started it?

[Ops]

I'm *really* not following the wisdom of all this...to me, IT'S NOT 
BROKE (Transcript language-wise)...if this discussion is based in a 
desire for current Rev programmers to have Transcript understand a 
syntax that they may be more familiar with, then I think it's insane to 
accommodate that desire, as the more Rev/Transcript is used, the more 
folks in that category will appreciate and embrace the virtues of 
current Transcript.  If this discussion is designed to increase the Rev 
developer crowd by offering a syntax that is more prolific to the 
developer community, then I think that other methods would be much more 
wise to employ, such as fixing bugs and improving Rev PR in general...

just .02 from a fairly new Rev developer.

jbv wrote:

>>>Each statement needs to start with a verb. Rather than break XTalk it would
>>>be more practial support JavaScript as an additional language implemented
>>>using one of many javascript interpreters available.
>>
>>This would be awesome, and would allow all sorts of additional
>>flexibility. Set the script language to "applescript" and write in
>>applescript syntax; set the script language to "javascript" and write in
>>that. It would open up whole new worlds.
> 
> 
> This is probably a dumb question, but what kind of new world would
> open the possibility to script a stack in javascript (for instance) ?
> 
> Thanks,
> JB
> 
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> 
>