RE: XML Technologies: Progress via Simplification or Complexif
Roger L. Costello wrote: > If XML, Cellular Automata, and all of nature can produce tremendous > complexity with minimal complicatedness, then surely XSLT 2.0, > XPath 2.0, XML Schemas 2.0, etc should be able to increase their > complexity-generating-capability with decreased complicatedness. > Yes? No. Or, not necessarily. Remember that XSLT, XPath, etc. are languages. Thus, they should be measured on their expressiveness and ease of use -- not just on "complicatedness." Often, we complicate our languages with words, idioms, etc. that are short-hands for or replacements for other combinations of words. We do this because it makes it easier to express what our intent is. For instance, we still talk about concepts like "speed", "acceleration" etc. when, if the calculus guys had their way, we'd probably be mumbling about first and second derivatives, etc... English is more "complicated" then it needs to be in theory, but often the added "complicatedness" is actually useful. Also, consider that in V2.0 of the languages you define, we might actually see an increase of "complicatedness" that is just setting us up for a reduction in "complicatedness" in V3.0... As with evolution and sailing, we often wander towards our goals rather than progressing to them in a straight line. Beware trying to convert concept into reality. It isn't always useful. bob wyman
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