[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>> Exactly, that's why as a programmer I'd rather stick with the
>> language I'm doing most of the application development with anyway
>> (i.e. C#, Javascript, etc) as opposed to dealing with the [familiar]
>> complexity of that language plus all the idiosyncracies of XQuery &
>> XML Schema as well.
To which I responded:
Hi Dare,
For the examples I've compared, I wind up writing about 4 times as much
code using that approach, and it definitely takes more time to write and
maintain that code.
Then Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> Can you give me the input XML and expected output so I can see
> whether XQuery really takes 4 times less code than E4X or C-Omega? In
> fact, I have an article due this month and that would be an
> interesting topic to cover.
Well, I said compared to C#, Javascript, etc. The specific examples that
I have compared use SAX or DOM to process either pure XML or to create
XML structures from relational databases. Your response indicates that I
was talking about E4X or C-Omega - I wasn't.
I don't know E4X. C-Omega makes sense to me, but I wonder if it has an
Ada problem.
Jonathan
|
