Antti Koivunen wrote:
>
> Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> <skip/>
> >
> > I'd be more happy if I can describe the flow in a "normal" programming
> > language, where I can express complex flow by writing a program. This
> > is what I'm trying to do in the Schecoon sub-project. Using the Scheme
> > language, and the fact that continuations are first class objects in
> > it, I want to implement the ideas described in the resources I
> > mentioned earlier. But the language to describe the flow will not be
> > Scheme, but one with a more familiar syntax.
>
> I think this is the best approach. It makes no sense to use a language
> not well suited for the task (alas, this happens all the time). At one
> stage, I suggested including support for popular scripting languages
> (possibly through BSF, e.g. Python, JavaScript), but then realized it
> was not the way to go (thanks a lot Ovidiu for forcing me to look into
> all that stuff, very interesting :). I also agree that the Scheme syntax
> (or lack thereof) is too much for most users, so we should try and come
> up with the optimal, easy to use syntax for describing the flow.
In case it wasn't crystal clear, I agree 100% on this.
The transition between FSM-based languages and procedural languages
happened decated ago and I think that writing a web application today,
compared to write, say, a command line application, it not only due to
concurrency issues but also to the fact that there is no way to program
a web application as you would do for your command line.
This has to change.
And I think Cocoon has the power to make it happen.
So, let's do it.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
