panyasan wrote: > Hi Kenneth, > > thank you for your interesting example that allows to get some insights into > how lisp works. However, isn't the point you are making more generally valid > for all kinds of declarative and macro-based syntax that is "compiled" to > javascript?
Sure. I was addressing the remark (paraphrasing) "JS is fine except for the absence of syntax extension". QxTransformer is another way to escape procedural JS, so good for it. > For example, in QxTransformer, we use a HTML-like markup which > gets transformed in javascript, and with the templating capabilities of this > system, I could easily draw up examples where a few lines of xml compile to > 3 or more times as much procedural javascript code. However, the drawback is > always the same - the further you get away from the code that does the > "actual stuff", the more code duplication you will have at the end... I > prefer writing my GUI in declarative XML because it is immediated obvious > what it is meant to do - just like in HTML - and thus in my opionion better > maintainable. But to have an additional layer is always a disadvantage, too. Wow. My mileage: it is /never/ a disadvantage as long as the end-user can bypass the mechanism, and one of the Prime Directives of qooxlisp is that it must allow full programmability of qooxdoo. I am stunned by the idea of macros leading to code duplication since that is the main problem they solve! Do you have an example? kt -- http://www.stuckonalgebra.com "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself." Macworld ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
