Re: Why not reinvent the wheel?

["Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com>]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Charles Reitzel wrote:
> One objection is that us poor developers can only squeeze so 
> many syntaxes into our heads (at one time anyway).  Subtle differences
> in processing will only cause grief when debugging complex programs.

Hmm.  I've been known to dance with as many as 4 syntaxes
in my head at once.  For instance, Visual Basic, C++, SQL, 
and Awk; I was building a visual basic program, using VBXs 
I wrote in C, talking to an oracle 6 database, and processing 
input using the vsAWK control.  What is interesting is
that I was never 'confused' since the languages are so 
starkly distinct.  On the other hand, I do inter-mixed 
Java and C++ programming now... boy do I get confused.  
So, I'd draw a slightly different lesson: if you have 
different functionality... make the syntax really different.  

> They both have if-then-else and for loops.  For better or
> worse, they are both programming languages.

Almost anything is a language... ;) Clark

> Yes, it is a bit easier to read the FORTRAN-like syntax. If syntax sugar is
> the compelling argument here, why not develop an XSLT generator?  I am
> encouraged by coordination around XPath 2.0.  Why not go the rest of the
> way: just make XSLT the XML syntax for XML Query?

XSLT is _way_ too verbose and does not support very good
modulization.  Until those things are fixed, XSLT is a
poor target. I applaud Jonathan and crew for sticking
with a non-XML syntax.  There is a place for XML, but it
is not in the programming language proper, as XSLT has
shown oooh so clearly.  And don't get me wrong... I use
XSLT daily.  In fact, over 1/2 of the application I'm working
on is written in XSLT.  I just don't have the time to 
create a better syntax....  *smirk*

> Finally, don't worry about slowing the pace of innovation.  XML will get
> scrapped in 5 (10, 15?, any bets?) years for something new ;~)

I doubt it, look at C.  It's 30+ years now, with absolutely no doubt
that it will be there in another 50.  XML is as fundamental as C, 
if not more so.  It may not be "readable", but it is "auditable".
And "auditable" business processes is what the world requires
for us to move to the next level of global interaction.

Best Regards,

Clark