Re: ConciseXML rationale and Scheme
On Saturday 18 January 2003 04:10 pm, Mike Plusch wrote: > >Why? > > Because Water is an example of an all-purpose language > that was designed for XML and Web Services. Actually, I was wondering why you think languages need more first-class support for XML. Just curious... > The only people that could say that Water is inconsistent is Scheme > folks. Well, they flamed XEXPR too... ;-) > I have a lot of respect for Scheme, and Jonathan "Mr. Secure Scheme" > had a hand in the Water language. Yes... I saw the claim to having capabilities in the security model. I'd be interested in exploring that a bit some other time. > Scheme had a purity and consistency for academics, but it would > never be accepted by general developers because it's not very > practical. I don't know why scheme/LISP failed. I'm not sure it had much to do with practicality, so much as the syntax being a bit hard to grok for many people... kind of like FORTH. > The developers that are using Water tell me that they really love > Water's consistency and uniformity -- much more so that either > the .NET or J2EE architectures. I can't see it... > I'm not sure what you mean when you say a "hodge-podge of > alternate syntaxes". Probably the reason is the same reason I have for seeing it as being inconsistent. For example: <defmethod factorial n> <if> n.<is 1/> 1 else n.<times <factorial n.<minus 1/> /> /> </if> </defmethod>> Why is the "else" not in angle brackets? How do you distinguish between keywords and variables in the inner body? I guess I'd like a clear explanation of the syntax.. kind of like an EBNF grammar or somesuch.
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