Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Friday 17 January 2003 03:53 pm, Mike Plusch wrote: > p.s. I don't know Adam Bosworth, but if he's arguing > for better support for XML in programming languages, > then I certainly think he's on the right track. : ) Why? >- Co-creator of the Water language >http://www.waterlang.org Ouch. I'm the inventor of XEXPR (http://www.w3.org/TR/xexpr), and had a few arrows shot at my chest for it by the scheme community (and rightly so in some cases... I should have at least required tail recursion ;-)). These also SXML (http://okmij.org/ftp/Scheme/xml.html), which is much more "correct" by scheme terms, though he flames XEXPR for the wrong reasons :-) But in all honesty, when I went and looked at Water, I was quite shocked. At least XEXPR is consistent. Water seems like a hodge-podge of alternate syntaxes and special case rules aimed at specific operations, rather than a consistent language. The fact that it doesn't even pretend to be XML, but rather just pays it lip service, makes it even worse. I'd rather work in VB, or LISP (despite the claims of "as easy as Basic" and "as powerful as lisp")... There must be something about Boston... Curl has got something like $50M in funding so far, and is a really funky language, and now we have Water, that is even funkier.
|
