OT: Programmers whos first language is not English
a.schmolck at gmx.net
Mon Mar 10 00:45:29 CET 2003
Stephen Horne <intentionally at blank.co.uk> writes:
> On 09 Mar 2003 21:02:23 +0000, Alexander Schmolck <a.schmolck at gmx.net>
> >Stephen Horne <intentionally at blank.co.uk> writes:
> >> I haven't seen this before, but I have seen (and considered) similar.
> >> In the most extreme form, I considered having an XML representation of
> >> the semantics (basically the abstract syntax tree that the parser
> >> would normally construct) and allowing people to invent their own
> >> syntaxes almost arbitrarily.
> >Uhm, why not just use lisp?
> I think I had this conversation with Paul Foley, long ago ;-)
> I repeat (or at least paraphrase) the short version of the answer I
> used then... I don't think LISP is a friendly language.
> Of course XML isn't a friendly language either,
Not being a language, yes.
> but the programmer looking at his editor is not supposed to see XML.
Why would he be supposed to see lisp?
> Yes, I also know that it is possible to write a parser in LISP and use
> it as a metalanguage in a remarkably natural way. It's still not what
> I mean, though it IS among the advantages I'd like to be able to
Anything you can express in XML you can express in sexps, only that sexps are
,certainly for your problem, *much* easier to read (both for humans and
computers) and also to manipulate and to create (thanks to the fact that they
tend to come with a powerful programming language built around them).
So what's the point of using XML?
More information about the Python-list