Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
My experiences with Erik indicated that he doesn't suffer from his tortures; he quite enjoys them. He is a very sharp fellow. That aside, I am teasing the programmers a bit (I am one too) but to point out the distinction of XML as something the average bear can master versus the extremes of real programming languages that require mastery. If we push too hard toward PLs, we break the contract with the rest of the user and implementor community. We have to be very careful about that sort of thing. This is like the XML subset issue: if we create subset only parsers instead of insisting that the application language designer take on the responsibility of choosing which features should be used and documenting that carefully (the document approach), we can seriously break the contracts that XML systems be easy to apply, have minimal options, and flatten out the footprint of code types. There are costs for mathematical elegance; one is that processes in real time, in real situations do not always match the fully factored terms of an elegant algebraic notation. Life is messy. len -----Original Message----- From: Greg Alvord [mailto:Greg.Alvord@g...] Len wrote: "My reservation here is that explaining attributes only seems to be a problem when talking to a well-trained programmer. " Programmers I have met have little problems with the distinction 1. Elements map to tables map to objects 2. Attributes map to columns map to properties. 3. Contained elements are children records are object pointers. Perhaps the analogy we should be using about Mr. Naggum is that of a parent who dreamed of a child becoming a lawyer and was bitterly disappointed when she became an architect. Logic and structure matter in both cases, but the constructions are vastly different and used for different things. At root logic and structure are branches of mathematics. It was very sad reading that. What a tortured life he must lead.
|
