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