Re: handler failure [oops! correction]
Re: handler failure [oops! correction]
- Subject: Re: handler failure [oops! correction]
- From: email@hidden (Michael Sullivan)
- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:13:59 -0500
- Organization: Society for the Incurably Pompous
has writes:
>
which is downright stupid.
>
At the end of the day though, maybe static bindings are just a Bad Idea in
>
a language as dynamic as AS. Wonder what the performance penalty would be
>
if static bindings were just dropped altogether?
No, you definitely want lexical bindings. Try using lisp or a
reasonable scheme for a while if you don't understand why they are
perfectly compatible with an otherwise very dynamic language.
>
No easy answer, I suspect.
I disagree. It's not *easy* of course, but it's quite possible and
solved. It was apple folks who started Dylan (an infix syntax lisp
variant), so there's definitely expertise there in handling
scoping/binding/typing the RightWay[tm], and AS, as speced, is right
where it should be. Implementation bugs/flaws are the problem. I
remain firm in the conviction that the only problem with AS is the
attitude (at apple and among users) that "it doesn't have to be that
clean or fast because it's only a scripting language." If you don't
want to develop a language, don't! Just adapt some already good
language to the architecture. There is no such thing as "only" a
scripting language.
I think AS, if implemented really cleanly with a few more standard
elements, would be a significant improvement over Python/Perl/etc., but
if that's not going to happen, I'd like to see a really clean
OSA+InterfaceBuilder implementation of one of those languages.
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT email@hidden
_______________________________________________
applescript-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.