It might help to understand why we created ConciseXML. We wanted to build a new general-purpose programming language designed for XML and Web Services. We came to the realization that the language must have an XML syntax to easily integrate with XML. XML can not be "foreign" to the language. This language must be so integrated with XML, that you think about the XML parser as much as you think about the Java parser when writing Java code (hint: never). If we tried to write code in another syntax, then generate XML, that causes a bunch of problems. If we used the XML 1.0 syntax, then nobody would use Water because the syntax was so verbose. Developers love code and hate anything that comes between them and their code. Clarity of expression is critical for understanding code. Instead, we decided to "fix" XML with ConciseXML. We knew the XML purists would hate us at first, but that was worth the risk because the majority of the world just wants to get their job done. _Mike Plusch - Co-creator of the Water language http://www.waterlang.org 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. : ) >I'm not sure how the latter thread (ConciseXML) argues against direct >access. Adam Bosworth is arguing for better support for processing XML >in programming languages/APIs while Mike seems to be arguing for a >mechanism for serializing objects to markup. Both threads seem >complementary to me.
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