[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Robin Berjon wrote,
> Miles Sabin wrote:
> > But this doesn't carry over to markup ... despite what I've seen on
> > numerous CVs, neither HTML nor XML are programming languages. And,
> > IMO, implying that the XML community should learn lessons from the
> > typeless programming language community is just as dangerous as,
> > and opens the door to, those who'd argue that the XML community
> > should learn lessons from the typed programming language community.
>
> I never implied that XML was a programming language, oh no. I do
> however believe that there are reasons why those communities exist,
> and I am concerned about direct transposition of those frictions to
> the still relatively peaceful world of XML. I'm not against typing,
> I'm against enforcement.
I simply can't make sense of the idea of typing without enforcement.
Types are constraints ... and an unenforced constraint is no constraint
at all. At best it's documentation.
Oh, and OT,
> > Au contraire ... with programming languages typing should _always_
> > be enforced and _always_ be necessary. If that causes you grief,
> > then you're probably using the wrong language.
>
> Pointers welcome :)
Depends on the problem. But in general, the richer and more expressive
the type system the better. It might not be very practical, but I've
always been very fond of Cecil,
http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/projects/cecil/cecil.html
Cheers,
Miles
|
