cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: [CocoonInAction] 2 new articles
Date Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:43:39 GMT
Erik Bruchez wrote:
> 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.

Let's agree to disagree then.


View raw message