Something I miss - when talking about "the web" - is some lisp-similar embedded in xml-forms. I.e. you have lisp-constructs and the lisp-philosophy, but in xml-syntax, with all the "benefits", like you can use DOM and the whole stuff (which is comparably useless but "standard"). Maybe as an alternative to XSLT. I dont like XML, but it has spread, we have to accept it, and it uses S-Expressions like any lisp, so it shouldnt be too hard to map a lisp onto it, why not trying to bring as much lisp-philosophy as possible into it?
Mostly. But - to be fair - there are a few quite good ideas like Datatype Definitions in it - which may also be crappy in notation and implementation, but exist - and it is still better than nothing. At least it is an abstract notation for Trees with possibilities to transform them, with some kind of useable namespace-mechanism, with comparably well API-Specifications to access them... I mean thats more than you can expect when considering that it is really used in "practical" projects - where you otherwise find crap like c++...Jasper wrote:afaik it is just nested lists with a crappy notation.
Yes. It may sound stupid - and in fact, it is - as all the stuff common ITiods are using... But:Jasper wrote:To be clear, you mean you want a function that takes a nested list, then expands where it finds keywords, and then expands that into valid XML? I mean, writing the stuff entirely in actual XML seems silly. Anyway, that shouldn't be too hard, i can add that to my project as a little sideline project.
I dont know X#, but ever heard of XSLT? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XSLT if not). I mean in general, there is XML - which is far away from being good, but it is there - a notation for trees... Then in general it is a good Idea to create a Scripting-Language with this syntax, so if you already have a Parser for XML, you dont need an additional parser for some other language. I mean thats sort of lisp's Idea to unify data and code - as soon as one accepts XML . But when you look at XSLT you'll find out that it is even more junk than XML. So what I mean is: XML is there, and will not go away, and if it goes away, then something worse will follow... XML is crap, but it could be worse... But XSLT is the last crap on earth... Why not at least trying to bring a few lisp-ideas into the XML-World?Jasper wrote:Edit: it reminds me of this.
I guess we got to give them that, yes..schoppenhauer wrote:At least it is an abstract notation for Trees with possibilities to transform them, with some kind of useable namespace-mechanism
I only checked it a millisecond on wikipedia when you mentioned it before.schoppenhauer wrote:I dont know X#, but ever heard of XSLT?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest