"Anton van Straaten" <email@example.com> writes:
> However, I think you're right that the SCSH FAQ doesn't quite
> succeed in communicating to someone who is comfortable with
> traditional scripting languages, why they should throw out all the
> arbitrary syntax they've worked so hard to memorize, and instead
> learn something that's more cleanly designed for extensibility and
> power. Part of the problem is that fully describing and contrasting
> these capabilities to those of the "scripting languages" would
> require an entire series of articles.
That said, this part of the FAQ could certainly be rewritten. It was
written in 1996, and it shows.
So, I'll do my homework and rewrite it before the FAQ gets posted next
month (on the 13th). We'll see if I manage to produce something less