cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Bruchez <e...@bruchez.org>
Subject Re: [CocoonInAction] 2 new articles
Date Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:21:58 GMT
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

 >> o We do strongly believe that the XML pipeline language in OPS beats
 >>   the ... out of Cocoon pipelines ;-)
 >
 > Oh, that's a bold statement :-)

Yes ;-)

 > eheh, one step up and two step back. Your pipeline language feels
 > turing complete (haven't proved it but I think it's duable), if that
 > is what you mean by beating the ... out of, well, we have a
 > different definition of '...' :-)

Honestly, I wouldn't be able to tell you for sure if it is turing
complete or not. XPL was not designed to be a general-purpose
programming language, or anything even close. If you try to write a
chess program in XPL, you will give up rapidly! In fact, XPL was
designed to address a number of practical use cases directly related
to processing XML documents / infosets. Yes there are conditionals and
iterations, but it stops there.

 > I do see value in more expressive power, but I also see a lot of
 > danger in introducing turing completeness in an XML
 > syntax. Everytime I see <if> or <foreach> I puke. XSLT made that
 > mistake first and now everybody is trying to make the same mistake.

Not sure why this is a mistake. As far as using an XML-based syntax, I
am still of the school that it is a good thing: you can more easily
automatically generate programs, even dynamically; creating software
that creates a graphical representation of the program is easier;
etc. You can also develop a non-XML compact syntax in addition to the
XML syntax. This is what Relax NG has done.

-Erik

Mime
View raw message