re: ...its just plain ugly to express programming constructs in XML.
Posted by
Anonymous User
at
2004-02-11 02:36 PM
You say:
"its just plain ugly to express programming constructs in XML."
but I think that confuses models with views. Using XML to store programs makes them easier for machines to manipulate. Displaying that XML to human beings makes as much sense (to me) as showing assembly code instead of Lisp. Every other major application on the planet (AutoCAD, Microsoft Word, MySQL) separates models from views; why don't programming languages?
See also http://www.third-bit.com/~gvwilson/xmlprog.html.
Writing, not reading, is hard
Posted by
Anonymous User
Anonymous Userat
2004-07-23 04:05 AM
Storing code in XML is fine and I agree that viewing is not a problem but how does a programmer write the code?
Some IDE's do this quite nicely - check out how REALbasic from http://www.realsoftware.com/ has a Save as XML that stores the entire project including all the source code as a series of literal lines.
You say:
"its just plain ugly to express programming constructs in XML."
but I think that confuses models with views. Using XML to store programs makes them easier for machines to manipulate. Displaying that XML to human beings makes as much sense (to me) as showing assembly code instead of Lisp. Every other major application on the planet (AutoCAD, Microsoft Word, MySQL) separates models from views; why don't programming languages?
See also http://www.third-bit.com/~gvwilson/xmlprog.html.
Storing code in XML is fine and I agree that viewing is not a problem but how does a programmer write the code?
Some IDE's do this quite nicely - check out how REALbasic from http://www.realsoftware.com/ has a Save as XML that stores the entire project including all the source code as a series of literal lines.