[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
It might help to understand why we created ConciseXML.
We wanted to build a new general-purpose programming
language designed for XML and Web Services.
We came to the realization that the language must have
an XML syntax to easily integrate with XML. XML can
not be "foreign" to the language. This language must be
so integrated with XML, that you think about the XML
parser as much as you think about the Java parser when
writing Java code (hint: never).
If we tried to write code in another syntax, then generate
XML, that causes a bunch of problems.
If we used the XML 1.0 syntax, then nobody would use
Water because the syntax was so verbose. Developers
love code and hate anything that comes between them
and their code. Clarity of expression is critical for
understanding code.
Instead, we decided to "fix" XML with ConciseXML.
We knew the XML purists would hate us at first, but
that was worth the risk because the majority of the
world just wants to get their job done.
_Mike Plusch
- Co-creator of the Water language
http://www.waterlang.org
p.s. I don't know Adam Bosworth, but if he's arguing
for better support for XML in programming languages,
then I certainly think he's on the right track. : )
>I'm not sure how the latter thread (ConciseXML) argues against direct
>access. Adam Bosworth is arguing for better support for processing
XML
>in programming languages/APIs while Mike seems to be arguing for a
>mechanism for serializing objects to markup. Both threads seem
>complementary to me.
|
