[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
So syntax is not trivial?
len
From: Norman Gray [mailto:norman@astro.gla.ac.uk]
Len,
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> The case
> for alternative syntaxes is weaker if all they do
> is enable faster typing in an ASCII editor. Then
> they are just more stuff.
But it's not about _faster_[1], it's about writing correct code.
As Pete said:
> But IME the power in a representation of data is in the
> patterns it allows the user to observe and create, not the amount of
> compression it supports (though compression brings features spacially
closer
> together so pattern mining becomes easier).
And as Bob said (again):
> If on the other hand, you mean that because notation is important as a
> vehicle for thought syntax should be tailored to be appropriate to the
> application and the intended audience, then I would heartily agree.
> Syntax is not trivial.
We don't need to go back to the language-and-thought thread of a few
months ago, in order to agree that how programming languages look is
important. A language that is hard to read is hard to write, and that's
as true of XSLT-in-XML as it is of anything else.
Thus this discussion isn't about _compact_ syntax, but (human) _readable_
syntax. I've adjusted the thread subject accordingly, since we're not
really talking about XUL any more.
|
