Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Saturday 18 January 2003 04:10 pm, Mike Plusch wrote:
> Because Water is an example of an all-purpose language
> that was designed for XML and Web Services.
Actually, I was wondering why you think languages need more first-class
support for XML. Just curious...
> The only people that could say that Water is inconsistent is Scheme
Well, they flamed XEXPR too... ;-)
> I have a lot of respect for Scheme, and Jonathan "Mr. Secure Scheme"
> had a hand in the Water language.
Yes... I saw the claim to having capabilities in the security model. I'd be
interested in exploring that a bit some other time.
> Scheme had a purity and consistency for academics, but it would
> never be accepted by general developers because it's not very
I don't know why scheme/LISP failed. I'm not sure it had much to do with
practicality, so much as the syntax being a bit hard to grok for many
people... kind of like FORTH.
> The developers that are using Water tell me that they really love
> Water's consistency and uniformity -- much more so that either
> the .NET or J2EE architectures.
I can't see it...
> I'm not sure what you mean when you say a "hodge-podge of
> alternate syntaxes".
Probably the reason is the same reason I have for seeing it as being
inconsistent. For example:
<defmethod factorial n>
<if> n.<is 1/>
n.<times <factorial n.<minus 1/> /> />
Why is the "else" not in angle brackets? How do you distinguish between
keywords and variables in the inner body?
I guess I'd like a clear explanation of the syntax.. kind of like an EBNF
grammar or somesuch.