[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 11:24 AM 7/8/2002 -0400, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>As soon as you need a programming language, this starts to fall down. I
>wouldn't want to write my own Java and JVM, or my own C++ compiler. I
>could imagine doing it myself, given infinite time, but my imagination
>sometimes runs wild.
Nah. I don't create my own microprocessors either, though I spent
yesterday reviewing my understanding of transistors and logic gates. I
think most programmers find having that level of control over their code to
be a pretty different from having that level of control over their data.
>I agree that XQuery is beyond the ability of most programmers to implement
>by themselves. One estimate I heard recently was that it takes 6 *very*
>good people about 6 months. But how long would it take most people to
>write compilers or interpreters for other programming languages or query
>languages?
Most programming languages and query languages have multiple
implementations. Few have as many implementations as XML 1.0, and there
are lots of reasons for that.
>I don't think that a query processor is as simple to write as an XML
>parser. That doesn't mean that queries are bad.
You seem utterly unwilling to acknowledge that the style of processing
you're pushing with XQuery is very very different from the style of
processing that takes place in parsing XML documents.
I'm not sure this is worth arguing any more, but I have to say that I have
less and less sympathy for W3C XML Query (and W3C XML Schema) every time
this wheel spins around. At this point, I have no confidence that the W3C
or its working groups have any understanding of why XML was attractive in
the first place or what it's actually good for. It seems to have gotten
lost in the roar of vendors rushing to pile on tools for programmers who
can't adjust to a slightly different view of information.
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
|
