[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 16:02 21/04/2004, Norman Gray wrote:
>But it's not about _faster_[1], it's about writing correct code.
If we take that as a given for the time being, i.e. we all
want to generate correct (valid) code prior to its being
fed to the 'wire'.
>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.
Isn't that what computers are good at? or supposed to be.
Take 'regular' stuff (from this damned wire again I suppose)
and make it pretty for the end user, reader, machine.
Are they really rubbish at taking human input, and 'regularising' it,
such that the wire can understand it?
How languages look hides too many sins Norman.
Is it lazyness?
I can't be bothered to write all those pointy brackets so
use a compact form.
Is it interpretation for the reader?
I (or someone) has written valid XML and I just want to 'read' it,
in some way that I prefer (styling).
Is it inspection?
The big fat inspector wants to know if X has tagged up the
document in the right way? (Call it QA).
Sure there are more ways that 'languages look', depends on the schema,
which one Norman?
regards DaveP
|
