<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><DIV><DIV>On Feb 21, 2007, at 10:18 AM, James Edward Gray II wrote:</DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Most of the "scripting language" advocates are now trying to escape that name, because it's such a poor fit. The term "dynamic language" is often preferred by those same people. At RubyConf 2006, Matz recommended we call Ruby an "agile language" in his keynote address.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>On Feb 21, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Thomas Aylott (subtleGradient) wrote:</DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ; color: rgb(0, 99, 18); "><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 99, 18); "><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; ">Maybe</SPAN> "Interpreted Language" instead of scripting language.</SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><DIV>The whole point of this tagging system is to allow people to easily find things.</DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>On Feb 21, 2007, at 3:18 PM, William D. Neumann wrote:</DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Sure. But the point is that "interpreted languages" is arguably less correct than "scripting languages", yet no more likely to increase findability of the contents than scripting language. If you aren't improving usability, then why decrease correctness?</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><DIV>On Feb 21, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Charilaos Skiadas wrote:</DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Yes I agree that "scripting language" is a lot more closer to where people would expect to find Ruby, Shell, Applescript etc.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>Personally, I vote for "Scripting languages"<DIV>That's where I would expect to find Ruby, Perl, Applescript, etc...<BR><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>From what I can tell, that seems less inaccurate than "Interpreted" and much more likely to be findable.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><DIV>thomas Aylott — <B>subtleGradient </B>— CrazyEgg — sixteenColors</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>