Michel Schinz <Michel.Schinz@epfl.ch> writes:
> "Anton van Straaten" <anton@appsolutions.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.
>
> Indeed.
>
> 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 controversial.
>
> Michel.
Michel,
I don't think that the FAQ needs to be any less "controversial". I
think that Anton's analysis is right on, and that the introduction is
fine as it is. Many <their language here> bigots look at it and are
offended by having their world view challenged. To hell with
them. They need to read, reflect, and *think*, rather than say "my
language can beat up your language". Maybe you could point them to
http://paulgraham.com/avg.html
and have them consider the Blub Paradox.
Thanks for all of your hard work relating to scsh.
--
George Demmy
|