Nevertheless, it is easier to build a tool around a declarative language expressed as XML, than a procedural language expressed as... a procedural programming language.I'm sorry, Luca, but I think that's BS.<cut/>For example, do you think that if the java classes were expressed as XML statements that *declarative* describe their methods and variables and inner classes it would be easier to write a tool like Eclipse?That I don't know, I've never seen the inner workings of Eclipse.Let's just say that when something is written in XML (say, an UML model expressed as XMI) I can fire up Xalan and beat the beast into submission easily, if the same mopel was expressed as a set of Java classes... hmmm... time for "man yacc" ?
Easier development should not out-weight easier usage. But as long as there is a grammar for creating an AST it is a piece of cake anyway.
Maybe it's just that I've worked with XML for too long, but I still like the easy production/validation/transformation of vocabularies that comes with it, and I'm scared a bit by the other approach.
Don't be :) cheers -- Torsten
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
