xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Duncan Davidson <james.david...@eng.sun.com>
Subject Re: [spinnaker] Announce
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:39:19 GMT
on 7/11/00 9:59 AM, Andy Heninger at andyh@jtcsv.com wrote:

> The C++ and Java code for a parser will clearly not be identical - they
> are different languages - but there's much to be gained by keeping the
> overall architecture and design the same between the two versions.

Somewhat... But I'd argue that if you are going to see any worth in
similarity, it comes from super level structure (modular design where you
talk about parser with pluggable validator, nothing deeper). Forcing
similarity deeper is a bad move.

CORBA code is yucky to read, x-platform APIs generated from IDL are yucky to
read. DOM, which is specifically designed for c/java/other lang usage is
yucky to use from the standpoint of a lot of Java programmers. And I'm sure
that a lot of C programmers don't like the Java-isms and so forth and so on.
 
So, should design docs and talks and discussions be shared. Absolutly.
Organization concepts -- yes where they apply. Coding characteristics and
anything deeper -- I'd say nay.

.duncan


Mime
View raw message