Chad J wrote:
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
Face it, XML is a text base markup language, not a programming language.
Text is for strings, and belong in quotes. I don't care if the
underlying data is a structure, or some logical construct which pretends
to be code.
XML is not a programming language. We should not be hindered by it. I
do not want to have to & codes for extended characters either.
Also, D is targeted at being a system level programming language. XML
does not belong in system level code (yes redhat, I am glaring at you).
We already have standards which we follow, including UTF-8/16/32. If
you want a to standardize the way we represent numbers beyond the way we
are doing it, then we might as well implement full localization and
binary formatted source code. I guess my rant is simple, XML is XML, D
is D, mixing them is stupid.
