MJ Ray wrote:
>
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> >> The schemer would say that XML syntax is a huge step backwards from what
> >> already existed... ;-)
> >Granted :) [in fact, I was told that Guy Steele now uses XML as a
> >defense to parethesis frequency in Scheme]
>
> Like they say, Lispers were there decades before most people, but it looks
> like all they will have to show for it is the knowledge that they were there
> decades before most people.
:)
Yeah, sometimes being too advanced is just as bad as being too obsolete.
> >Still, the user base is what it is and we must be as user-friendly as
> >possible: for example, I personally think that italian is a great
> >language to express many things in a much more detailed and precise way
> >than english, but how would you feel if I required you to learn italian
> >in order to use Cocoon?
>
> I would say that it is perfectly fair, but would ask you in my best (still
> very bad) Italian that we use the most common neutral language instead.
This is exactly my point.
> Projects like Apache are pointed up as examples of meritocracy in action,
> but what is meritocratic about giving people an advantage based on their
> native tongue?
Sorry, I can't parse this (you know, native tongue impedence mismatch)
> >I know I'm exagerating, but that's on purpose: user-friendly is also a
> >mean of getting close to the user and on the web, the amount of schemers
> >is very close to zero. (unfortunately, you might say and I wouldn't
> >disagree myself, but that's the way it is and we don't have the power,
> >right now, to change this).
>
> Very close to zero is relative. The people doing scheme-web things are
> doing some quite interesting research, but there are a lot less of them than
> java-web people. Of course, the number of java-web people doing something
> as interesting as Cocoon is very close to zero too, relative to the number
> of java-web people as a whole.
Correct. This is why I'm not necessarely against exploring new
directions as long as the community agrees to follow them.
I'm not afraid of technological advancement (how could I be?), but I'm
afraid of steering the user community too quickly and this might
generate forking frictions that I don't want to have to dissipate.
This is why I'm very cautious but neutral toward alternative paths: they
could be the best thing since sliced bread or the worst thing since the
death star.
> >At the same time, introducing the concept of continations to java
> >programmers would open up their minds and make Cocoon different from any
> >other implementation of a java webapp framework.
>
> I think continutations could be a powerful new tool, but I'm still surprised
> that they haven't been widely implemented in the schemes that compile to JVM
> code if there isn't some serious drawback to them. I expect that the
> drawback is efficiency of implementation and execution, which could make C2
> harder to tune than the posts to the -users list suggest it already is.
>
> Ovidiu's postings have only scratched the surface of the complexity that can
> be modelled simply with them, so it would be a good addition to the toolbox
> if possible, so definitely worth researching. As always, I could be talking
> out the back of my head here and anyway I'm not someone with a vote,
> although I can go beg someone who is...
I also think Ovidiu is on something that has the potential to turn this
project into something better (and easier to use).
If this is so, wonderful, if not, I'm sure we'll learn something anyway
and this is good nevertheless.
--
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]
