Re: terra incognita
> At the time I argued, and I think I still believe, that XML is > about as close as you can get to the *opposite* of O-O thinking. > The O-O paradigm is that objects are nicely packaged opaque > bundles of code & data that do things through carefully designed > & presented interface, and you're not supposed to bother your > pretty little head about what's happening inside. Yep, though whether the interface is strongly typed or not is another question. > A chunk of XML on the other hand perforce exposes all its > internal structure and does precisely nothing. These two > paradigms come from different planets. Another way to look at XML is as a set of (nested) interfaces with getters for retrieving elements by gi(type) and/or position. I first heard this from an OODB fellow... and for certain things, it does make sense. > At the end of the day code and data just aren't that much > like each other. Maybe this is why Lisp never took over the > world, cool though it is. -Tim Maybe I'm an unrepentant LISP hacker, but I think code and data are very much the same. Sometimes I treat my code as data (when I'm calculating complexity metrics or simply searching it), and sometimes, the data as code (for example, XTND/XEXPR are data, but could be interpreteted as code)
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format