> -----Original Message----- > From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 12:12 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [RT] the quest for the perfect template language > > > Mato Mira, Fernando wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >> FORGET THE XML SYNTAX! > > > > > > I agree. The optimum is Lisp. > > > > http://ssax.sourceforge.net/ > > Pfff, changing angle brakets with rounded brakets is not > exactly what I > call a difference.
Exactly. Why do people complain about Lisp syntax, but are so high on the verbose SGML-derived languages? > And considering the adoption of XSLT compared to DSSSL (which used a > lisp-based syntax) only the lisp-oriented people would agree > with your > definition of 'optimality'. So what? Popularity does not make right. > And reality tells you that there are 100 C-like-syntax-used > persons for > each single lisp-like-syntax-used person. So plan to throw your > potential user market down the drain. OK. Current user market does not matter for lispers. > this is the same exact argument that made us choose > javascript instead > of scheme for the flowscript syntax. And I think it still holds. You don't have to choose. The strength of Cocoon is letting the *user* choose. It's bad enough that I have to bother about the XML monster. I don't plan to use JSP, XSP, JavaScript or some custom template language. You were looking for perfect, not popular, so I had to give it a shot to accelerating the evolution. [Before you ask why I don't write a Cocoon in Lisp: well, I'm not paid to do that; but I can help with BRL, Scheme flowscript, and other lispy plugins that we might want to use]
