Lists Home |
Date Index |
>>Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>>The "Desperate Perl Hacker" argument was a bogus claim for XML 1.0
because of the existence of
>>entities and CDATA sections but is quite farcical now with the existence
of the Namespaces in XML
>>recommendation (and it's bastard spawn "QNames in content").
>Empirically false, at two levels. First, lots of people process XML with
perl (or equivalent) all the time.
>Second, the real requirement was to make it tractable to take a large
body of document data and make
>quick programmatic changes on it. Which, obviously, XML makes way easier.
Ah, but what if the programs are *wrong* because of the failure to take
account of all the lexical complexities
required to make such programs *correct*. Just because lots of people do
it, don't make it right.
Lets focus on a simple, straight question.
Lets imagine we are developing a mission critical application - a life
We need to detect the pulse of a patient in the data stream. There is a
<pulse> tag that contains
the data we want. What is the shortest *correct* program to extract out the
pulse figures using regexp?
I would argue it is a complete XML 1.0 WF parse! If it ain't, I'm not
buying that life support machine. If I'm charged
with developing the application, I'm firing any programmer that uses regexp