Luca Morandini wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Luca Morandini wrote:
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" ?
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.
Which is fair, but this is due to your experience and knowledge. It's
fair and nice that you say that it's easier for *you* to write some code
using XML technologies instead of using javacc or yacc or bison or
whatever else, but using this is an absolute argument is utterly
misleading and one of the sins that, myself included, we, as a community
made over the years.
--
Stefano.
