[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> At the time I argued, and I think I still believe, that XML is
> about as close as you can get to the *opposite* of O-O thinking.
> The O-O paradigm is that objects are nicely packaged opaque
> bundles of code & data that do things through carefully designed
> & presented interface, and you're not supposed to bother your
> pretty little head about what's happening inside.
Yep, though whether the interface is strongly typed or not is another
question.
> A chunk of XML on the other hand perforce exposes all its
> internal structure and does precisely nothing. These two
> paradigms come from different planets.
Another way to look at XML is as a set of (nested) interfaces with getters
for retrieving elements by gi(type) and/or position. I first heard this from
an OODB fellow... and for certain things, it does make sense.
> At the end of the day code and data just aren't that much
> like each other. Maybe this is why Lisp never took over the
> world, cool though it is. -Tim
Maybe I'm an unrepentant LISP hacker, but I think code and data are very much
the same. Sometimes I treat my code as data (when I'm calculating complexity
metrics or simply searching it), and sometimes, the data as code (for
example, XTND/XEXPR are data, but could be interpreteted as code)
|
