Now, this wasn't OO. However, what concerns me is that you want to create an OO language and expect non-programmers to be able to handle it. That's got "Bad Plan"(tm) written all over it. Perl is the easiest "real" language to learn, except for VB. (Maybe that's why M$oft made VB their scripting language of choice?) Start small. If you're smart in your design, the language should be upgradeable without impacting anything else. (Maybe a Script::* set of modules?) Plus, demanding that your users actually understand the basics of procedural programming isn't unreasonable - it's almost expected, these days. If your users demand scripting capabilities, you can demand knowledge. (Unless, of course, you were planning on writing a GUI "editor" that allowed them to drag-and-drop statements from a list... if you're doing that, quit your job and write a game.)

As for bad code checking, use eval. Let the interpreter check bad code for you! Oh, you can do basic easy stuff, like balance parentheses and the like, but don't do any complicated syntax or nothing. Why kill yourself when Perl does it already??

Now, this wasn't OO. However, what concerns me is that you want to create an OO language and expect non-programmers to be able to handle it. That's got "Bad Plan"(tm) written all over it. Perl is the easiest "real" language to learn, except for VB. (Maybe that's why M$oft made VB their scripting language of choice?)

While I apreciate your comment, I must say that I strongly disagree with you. Very strict OO languages, can be made very learnable for non programmers by giving it the right interface. Have a look at what Alan Kay have done with Squeak, it certainly have made it very accesible to a lot of very inexperienced children....

Btw. most newer dialects of Logo are turing complete.. would you really say that Perl is easier to learn than Logo? *grin* =)

If your users demand scripting capabilities, you can demand knowledge

he he... but knowledge not including OO? The fact is that the system itself is build around the notion of objects. A web page for example is presented to the administrators as an object viewable through a web browser, so the object based thinking is there allready. For example, if the script writer want the name of a specific user, it might be available as an instance variable on the users object (ie. the page showing the CRM data for the specific user).

Unless, of course, you were planning on writing a GUI "editor" that allowed them to drag-and-drop statements from a list... if you're doing that, quit your job and write a game

Well.... I do plan to make a GUI which will make an easier entrance for inexperienced users, alongside the full access to the scripts. However, I don't see how this changes the knowledge required towards understanding procedural vs OO thinking.

Btw... we do alot of game programming, and quite frankly, it is a _lot_ harder than most people think.

As for bad code checking, use eval. Let the interpreter check bad code for you! Oh, you can do basic easy stuff, like balance parentheses and the like, but don't do any complicated syntax or nothing. Why kill yourself when Perl does it already??

Well, I didn't plan to kill myself, but simply use a YACC... the right tool can often make a big difference towards how hard a thing is to implement =)

Kasper

pmas
To make errors is human. But to make million errors per second, you need a computer.

Do you mean simple PC?

Hardware wise, yes, but software wise, no... While MS products might seem cheap (Yearh right), to some home users, try equiping even a small organization with around 50 people with Win2K and Office pro licenses.. not a pleasent experience.

Furthermore... I reeeeally don't like access, for everyday I have used it, I have become more and more sure, that it is actually just minesweeper with a few added lines of code =)

...well maybe that was a bit harsh, i find access very adeqate (..hmm.. aparently my english spelling abilities have gone after just two beers) for some smaller jobs, but would rather not use it for anything so serious that I could not just as easily have used text files for the job.

Kasper

I am afraid my point - "use Access if you have it already" on your Windows machines was not obvious enough. :(
I do not agree about Access with you. It is excellent for first-time, inexperienced users, for casual access to data. I am not aware of any other DB interface (for the price) with so easy to use visual query builder, or "query by form". You cannot beat easiness of building SQL table JOINs visually.

Sure enough, when you need to do more serious development, you are seduced to MS concepts, but can avoid it by using DBI, ODBC and perl. With DBI, perl, and little thinking , I may not care what database I am connected into.

Access (== MS Jet database engine) has record locking and transactions as real databases have, which I doubt about text files... ;)

And sure enough, if you do not need PC, and free *NIXish system is acceptable for users, just go ahead.

Installed OS is not a "religious issue" for me. User needs to be comfortable with the OS selected, and luckily enough I can port my perl on almost any system (there was discussion about porting Perl to Palm PDA- can you believe that?).

Obviously, if users like to try to equip 50 PCs with Linux and StarOffice, excellent - Micro$oft is rich enough. If I may not care about transactions - so mysql is enough, it's fine. I did not use Postgress DB, so I cannot recomment id. After many years using database PROGRESS and it's clever 4GL language, I am back to plain stupid SQL on ORACLE, and only perl makes this experience bearable... ;)

And I am sure Access is more than minesweeper: Access can do transactions and rollback, but minesweeper cannot. :)

Update: Full disclosure: I am using Access/ODBC connection to ORACLE database to check how my CGI scripts are working. I found it easier - because I know it already...:)

pmas
To make errors is human. But to make million errors per second, you need a computer.