Justin Johansson wrote: > > I wasn't thinking XSLT particularly. > > By XML aware, I meant awareness of (any parts of) the wider XML > ecosystem in general and W3C related specs so not just XML syntax but > including XML Schema Datatypes for example. Obviously XSLT is something > that would be implemented in a library rather than being reflected in a > language but such a library would be easier to implement in a language > that acknowledged XML Schema Datatypes. > > In the case of XML syntax, note that both Scala and JavaScript support > XML syntax at the language level (the latter via the E4X extension to > JavaScript). At some point in the (distant) future, D might support XML > syntax in the language in similar fashion to Scala, who knows. I > understand that D1 has some ability to embed D code in HTML. Though > I've never used it, and considering that (X)HTML is an application of > XML, this is at least an acknowledgement by D that HTML exists! > > My point basically boils down to this. We all accept IEEE Standard for > Floating-Point Arithmetic (IEEE 754) as the basis for the binary > representation of floating point data and nobody is going to argue > against that. In terms of the evolution of standards, XML Schema > Datatypes does for the lexical representation of common datatypes > (numeric and string data), what IEEE 754 does for floating point data at > the binary level. > > In the future I believe that PL's will implicitly acknowledge XML Schema > Datatypes as much as vernacular PL's implicitly acknowledge IEEE 754 > today and that's why I took shot at your comment "Useless hindrance to > future language expansion". > > Cheers > Justin
Thank you for the well written explanation. Now then, if XML is the way of the future, just shoot me now. I know ActionScript 3 also supports XML syntax at the language level. When I first learned this I likely had a huge look of disgust on my face. Something like (╬ ಠ益ಠ). Requiring a general purpose programming language to also implement XML is just too harsh for too little gain. Wrap that stuff in qoutes. D even has a rather rich selection of string literals; too many if you ask me. I really do not understand why XML should have such a preferred status over every other DSL that will find itself embedded in D code (or any other PL for that matter). In other news, I discovered YAML. I haven't used it enough to see if it has a dark side or not, but so far it looks promising. It doesn't make my eyes bleed. That's a good start. It may just be worthy of me using it instead of rolling my own encodings. And yes, I'll roll my own encodings if I damn well feel like it. I plan on using D for hobby game programming in the future, so I have no desire to drink the over-engineered koolaid that is XML. I'll swallow SVG, but only in small doses. SVG is actually useful because Inkscape exists, but I don't really intend to implement all of it, since SVG is also quite over-engineered. Ah, that felt good. - Chad