OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] ConciseXML rationale and Scheme

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

On Saturday 18 January 2003 04:10 pm, Mike Plusch wrote:
> >Why?
> 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
> folks.

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
> practical.

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.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS