> On Jun 23, 2015, at 5:50 PM, Pavel Minaev <[email protected]> wrote: > > I see what you're aiming at. But, in general, you can take an imperative > language and produce a declarative subset of such a language. The obvious > benefits there is that you don't have a syntactic or semantic mismatch > between your declarative islands and the imperative sea of code around them.
Pavel, There is something ELSE that you missed in my list of requirements for processing semi-structured data. Even if you do what you say, and you extend existing programming languages (C++, Java, C#)….. Those are ALL …. strongly typed. (The only exception is Javascript, which has kind of a hacky, put together in a weekend kind of semantics…) This strongly typed thing hardly works for semi-structured data. Or, no, let’s be clear: ****it doesn’t work AT ALL****. You missed another bullet in my list (might look insignificant at first sight)…. but it is ESSENTIAL if you want to deal with semi-structured data. 4. A battery of implicit type conversions. http://x-query.com/pipermail/talk/2015-May/004719.html <http://x-query.com/pipermail/talk/2015-May/004719.html> Those are definitely NOT easy to define for a data processing language, I tried to explain there why. Again, among all the programming languages that I know, XQuery has the best (ONLY!?) set of such operations. And again, those operations have NOTHING to do with XML. They are completely orthogonal to XML. Best regards Dana
_______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
