[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
My experiences with Erik indicated that he
doesn't suffer from his tortures; he quite
enjoys them. He is a very sharp fellow.
That aside, I am teasing the programmers a
bit (I am one too) but to point out the distinction
of XML as something the average bear can master
versus the extremes of real programming languages
that require mastery. If we push too hard toward
PLs, we break the contract with the rest of the
user and implementor community. We have to be
very careful about that sort of thing.
This is like the XML subset issue: if we create subset
only parsers instead of insisting that the
application language designer take on the
responsibility of choosing which features should
be used and documenting that carefully (the
document approach), we can seriously break
the contracts that XML systems be easy to
apply, have minimal options, and flatten
out the footprint of code types. There
are costs for mathematical elegance; one
is that processes in real time, in real
situations do not always match the fully
factored terms of an elegant algebraic
notation. Life is messy.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Alvord [mailto:Greg.Alvord@gogallagher.com]
Len wrote: "My reservation here is that explaining attributes only seems to
be a problem when talking to a well-trained programmer. "
Programmers I have met have little problems with the distinction
1. Elements map to tables map to objects
2. Attributes map to columns map to properties.
3. Contained elements are children records are object pointers.
Perhaps the analogy we should be using about Mr. Naggum is that of a parent
who dreamed of a child becoming a lawyer and was bitterly disappointed when
she became an architect. Logic and structure matter in both cases, but the
constructions are vastly different and used for different things. At root
logic and structure are branches of mathematics.
It was very sad reading that. What a tortured life he must lead.
|
