Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:25:37 -0500, Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...> wrote: > Data is hard for programmers. Not wanting to open up too big a can of worms, but perhaps data is hard for *OO* programmers, since the principle of encapsulating data behind accessor methods has been promoted for a decade or so now. Geezers who learned that Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs shouldn't have a problem with labelled trees, or text patterns in strings, or whatever. <duck> > > 1. Tim notes that SQL isn't used for business logic, and asks why XQuery > should be different. Well, as Tim points out, you can't implement any > serious business logic in SQL. You can in XQuery. I think that makes a > difference. Not wanting to open up another can of worms (and someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't have much recent concrete experience with SQL), but this is only true of *standard* SQL, which few actually use. Aren't most "SQL" programs written using either SQL extensions to a programming language or development environment (e.g. ADO, JDO), or things like PL/SQL that extend SQL to be real programmming languages? > 2. Tim says that there is no one data model for XML, and without a data > model you can't have a language. I gotta agree with Jonathan here and not Tim -- the differences among the DOM, Infoset, XPath 1/XSLT 1, XPath 2 /XSLT 2 / Xquery data models are annoying, but much smaller than their similarities. The differences are also mainly in the realm of the cruft that spawns a bazillion permathreads (most notably namespaces and "syntax sugar"), and not the elements / attributes / unicode text core that Tim focused on in his defense against the unwashed masses chanting "XML [expletive deleted]" on Slashdot :-)
|
