After Parrot, what next?

[Dave LeBlanc]

On 14 Apr 2001 16:10:35 GMT, neelk at alum.mit.edu (Neelakantan
Krishnaswami) wrote:

<snip>
>But for an actual programming language there's no win at all in a
>language using XML as its concrete syntax. That's the easiest part;
>there is no leverage to using XML there. You can't even use it to make
>automatic program generation easier because there's no standard
>mechanism to avoid variable capture.
>
agreed "markup language" != "programming language". I consider
language as part of "markup language" a misnomer.

>If you want a custom XML transformation language, DSSSL is better,
>already exists, and is designed for this domain. It has an actual
>semantics; it is more expressive; and it is easier for humans to read
>and write.

DSSSL is so complex that, like SGML, no completely standard compliant
version exists after all these years. It's also not as widely used as
it's much younger offspring XSL (ok at leat the transform part, at
this time).

>
>Neel

Dave LeBlanc