[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Programming language reincarnation : was : XML-aware programming languag

• To: "Kirkham, Pete \(UK\)" <pete.kirkham@b...>
• Subject: Programming language reincarnation : was : XML-aware programming language?
• From: david.lyon@c...
• Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:44:03 +1100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <820DBA1A8ECA1D45A557AFD03CF4DEE06E5042@glkms0015>
• References: <820DBA1A8ECA1D45A557AFD03CF4DEE06E5042@glkms0015>
• User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.6

Pete,

Lisp was a very bizarre programming language..

I mention this in the past sense because it doesn't seem
to be used very much any more.

Perl on a bad hair day still looks better to me than
the best example of lisp one could ever find.

There are so many xml aware programming languages now
that it seems hard to find one that isn't.

Tcl, perl, vb, java, delphi, c++.... the only language
that I can think of that doesn't really do xml that
well is dbase although there are reincarnations that
are able, eg flagship.

In twenty years, we've tried almost every programming
language.... and I think.. we finally have some decent
ones...

my question is, how come we are using the same
communication techniques that amount to little more
than doing a kermit transfer under xenix (yuurk..)

ok.. sorry ftp... soap...

All I'm just saying is we seem to be going through
languages like they are a reincarnation hoping to
somehow reach a nirvana.....

how could we possibly want an 'xml programming language'
when ultimately xml is meant to be a small part of a
big world? and we have great programming languages that
do an excellent language in that big world?

Why shrink down to the (xml) message and try to look
out from it's perspective?

I don't know.. I'm just saying I don't want my programming
language reincarnated again... it's happy being a
beatle...


Quoting "Kirkham, Pete (UK)" <pete.kirkham@b...>:

>
> Lisp can do this (or rather, anything that meets these criteria becomes a
> Lisp).
>
> But no-one uses Lisps much, quite possibly because the layers (domain
> specific language, macro language, object system, lower level functions,
> compiler etc.) are unified - there's no context clue as to which layer
>    (onetuh ahnout aouhtn oaunht)
> is in without knowing enough about the layers of the system to locate
> 'onetuh'.
>
> The multi-paradigm/layer nature of such beasts adds to the knowledge cost of
> large teams, and may also indicate that a similar context issue will effect
> net based systems. In my experience, the more capability and levels a
> language provides, the less accessible it is.
>
>
> Pete
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

• References:
  • RE: XML-aware programming language?
    • From: "Kirkham, Pete (UK)" <pete.kirkham@b...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML-aware programming language?
• Next by Date: Re: What niche is XQuery targeting?
• Previous by thread: RE: XML-aware programming language?
• Next by thread: Need help: Including sevearl xml files in one xml
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread