Michel Schinz <Michel.Schinz@epfl.ch> writes:
> "Anton van Straaten" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 controversial.
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
and have them consider the Blub Paradox.
Thanks for all of your hard work relating to scsh.