cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: [RT][long] Cocoon 3.0: the necessary mutation
Date Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:52:32 GMT
Luca Morandini wrote:

> Nevertheless, it is easier to build a tool around a declarative 
> language expressed as XML, than a procedural language expressed as... a 
> procedural programming language.

I'm sorry, Luca, but I think that's BS.

A complexity of a tool is given by the degrees of freedom, not by the 
flavor/syntax/style that you use to encode the information that your 
tool generates.

Sure, XML removes the syntax and validation stages that you get for 
free. Then RDF and OWL might even give you some implicit reasoning 
abilities. And then an RDF rule language might introduce some 
prolog/datalog-like constructs.

And if you think writing a tool for this stuff is easier just because 
it's more "declarative" (which more and more reads to me as "the 
procedures are implicit"), think again, you are thinking about parser 
reuse and *that* is probably 1% of your tool cost anyway.

For example, do you think that if the java classes were expressed as XML 
statements that *declarative* describe their methods and variables and 
inner classes it would be easier to write a tool like Eclipse?


View raw message