[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What is a lightweight language

Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> I actually think XSLT made a mistake.  By violating the easy
> parsability of XML, they are propagating a Bad Idea.  

The XPath expression language that is used in XSLT is a completely
separate specification. It is usable separate from XSLT in contexts
where you think of it as an addressing language like a URI. Even though
I'm the co-author of an XML book, I certainly would not suggest that
URIs should be expressed as <uri protocol="http"
ip=""><path>path1</path><path>path2</path></uri> etc.

> I think neither XML nor s-expressions are an all-round win.  XML makes
> it really easy to write text; s-expressions make programmatic features
> a lot easier.  

I don't see why we need an all-round win. XML advocates DO NOT (in
general) program in XML-based languages. If you treat Shriram's slides
as a joke, it is a funny one. If you treat it as an argument, then he's
arguing against a strawman position that almost nobody holds. When
people come to conferences showing how they invented a programming
language based on XML (it's been done many times), most XML people
suggest that they've missed the point.

XSLT is the only exception to the rule and it is not a general purpose
programming language. It is lightweight at what it does. It isn't a
replacement for Scheme, etc.

 Paul Prescod