on 10/30/01 4:23 PM, Laurent Daudelin at laurent_daudelin_at_fanniemae.com
wrote:
> This intention comes to grief on the reality that syntax
> isn't what makes programming hard; it's the mental effort and organization
> required to specify an algorithm precisely that costs. Thus the invariable
> result is that `candygrammar' languages are just as difficult to program in
> as terser ones, and far more painful for the experienced hacker.
Although it's considered improper to comment on sigs, I have to say that I
enjoy this sig. One only needs browse the Hypercard section of AOL to see
the truth of the above. :-)
(segue back on topic...)
So, where does Applescript fit into this scheme? Is it candygrammar, or a
true language? ;-)
-- -Jon Glass Krakow, Poland <mailto:jonglass_at_usa.net> <mailto:glasshaus5_at_aol.com> If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants. . . . Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings." --Dr. Peter Singer, professor of bio-ethics, Princeton-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 10:02:53 EST