On Nov 28, 2007 8:48 PM, Geoffrey Broadwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 19:59 +0100, James Fuller wrote:
> > XML Parser is what I am talking about
> OK -- do you want an event-based parser?  Do you want a DOM parser?  Do
> you want a simplified tree generator parser?  Do you care about memory
> limitations?  Run time?

a basic XML parser, from which one can build anything else (like a DOM
or SAX parser).

when building a parser, I would care about memory limitations and all
the questions you ask, this would be asked irregardless of embedding
into perl or writing something standalone ... feels like you are just
asking questions to enhance perception of complexity.

> This view frustrates me.  I want my programming language to provide me
> expressive power.  And I certainly do want modules available should I
> choose to be Lazy.  But I don't expect that someone in a totally
> different business (or hobby) should want the same modules I do.  That's
> what CPAN6 is for.  Or task-related bundles, for that matter.
> We should not ship CGI *as core*.  We should not ship XML tools *as
> core*.  Frankly, I don't think we should ship DBI *as core*, even though
> I use databases ever day.  But these APIs should be available easily.
> In fact, I expect to be able to intall Bundle::IntarWeb and get them
> all, plus all sorts of other useful goodies.

I would argue that XML is slightly evolved 'text' and I would like to
see my fav programming language treat it as a first class citizen

Put this in perspective, XML is 10 years old and it is widely adopted.

Just doing an informal survey across a lot of common programming
languages/frameworks shows it is common and widely supported; having
some tooling embedded in the language, though admittedly most of these
approaches still 'bolt on' XML.

I will first have to get perl6 (on parrot) running to understand a bit
more of what is in core before I continue asking any more questions.

cheers, Jim Fuller

Reply via email to