commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanouil Batsis <>
Subject Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration
Date Fri, 13 May 2005 11:31:00 GMT
Dan Madoni wrote:

>I'm not sure how the argument can be made that processing semantics written
>in XML are more accessible than any well-designed language. 

>In terms of human accessibility, I'd heartily disagree, acknowledging that
>the predication is a subjective one in any case.

I have to admit my perspective is a bit subjective; i started my IT 
career as an HTML author and still carry the wrong assumption that 
markup is familiar even to non-programmers.

In general though i think that XML does lower the bar for many different 
kinds of people, whether they are desingers with some markup experience 
or programmers that can choose from a variety of APIs and tools. A fine 
example of "executable XML" that shares some properties with Jelly is 
XSLT and few comment on it in the same manner they do for Ant build 
files (which, i believe, is where all this "XML scripting is bad" mostly 
comes from for some reason).

> It certainly isn't true in
>my case: my experience with using XML as a programming language is that it
>is much more cumbersome to express or discern something meaningful relative
>to programming languages that were designed from the outset to be
>programming languages.

I can see your point, all i can say is that i dont think we dissagree. 
Most choices have their own pros and cons.

>Jelly is fabulous and certainly has its place; but as long as it is
>positioned as "executable XML", which sounds about as relevant as
>"Spreadsheet: The Video Game", few will understand or bother to investigate
>its usefulness.

True, i think the term is unfortunate. Anyway, i think i've been too 
philosophical for this list already :-)


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Emmanouil Batsis [] 
>Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 12:25 AM
>To: Jakarta Commons Users List
>Subject: Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration
>Paul Libbrecht wrote:
>>I agree "executable XML" may suck
>With an emphasis on "may" ;-)
>This seems to be a common feeling. I never understood how most people 
>dismiss so easily the fact that processing semantics written in XML are 
>far more accessible (for humans and programs alike) than their non-XML 
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message