Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > Ovidiu Predescu wrote: > >>On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 10:38:05 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>>Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
<skip/> >>> >>>Hey, this is *exactly* what happens for the sitemap, but people are >>>*much* less scared away from markup because I think the problem is with >>>syntax, not with semantics. >>> >>>that is the reason why a scheme version of the sitemap or flowmap will >>>scare the crap out of almost every user we already have! >>> >>Yes, unfortunately I have to agree with you here. People don't get too >>excited when they see a language with apparently little, to no syntax >>:-/ >> > > good. > > >>>so, java doesn't scare people away because it uses the good-old C >>>syntax. javascript same thing. Are there any technical reasons to be tied to a specific syntax (apart from optimization issues)? AIU, if the semantics are clear, it should be possible to define the necessary abstractions to allow the use of different syntaxes. IMO, one obvious implementation would BSF, as it's already included in the Cocoon distribution and would provide "of the shelf" support for JavaScript (Rhino) and Python (Jython), among others. It makes sense to limit the flexibility to some extent, but I don't see the choice of syntax as a major issue, as long as the context objects and interactions are well defined, and everything's properly documented. IMO, it would be a advantage to support popular scripting languages. <skip/> >>That's exactly the reason I'm trying to come up with a name for >>the "flowmap language". I believe the concepts behind it are much too >>powerful for it to be just a little language for Cocoon. For Cocoon to >>be successful in the long run, it's important to have its ideas >>adopted by other projects as well. >> > > Key works: 'long run'. > > I'm not saying that this will not happen, but I'm saying that we should > make it as hard as possible for people to clone Cocoon and rip out > contracts until we have the ability to 'fight' to keep those contracts > solid and we have a position where we have clear indication on how to > evolve and influence them. I think we should focus on Cocoon, when developing Cocoon. IMO, this also means focusing more on the semantics than a specific syntax. Ovidiu has done a terrific job refining the concept, and I'm sure his flowmap language is a very powerful one, indeed, but still it should be seen as a way of expressing those semantics. > For now, my opinion is: let's focus on development. Marketing has to > follow that. I agree. Especially considering the purpose of the flowmap and the current stage of the development, the target audience (developers) might not be that impressed to see YANFAS (yet another name for a syntax). Don't get me wrong, marketing is of course important, and in the long run, things might be different. (: Anrie ;) -- Antti Koivunen | "Anrie" [un-ree] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------- musician | graphic designer | software architect | wrote: --------------------------------------------------------- The song of life might not be an easy one, but there's plenty of room for improvisation. --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
