Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Think about Java's inner classes (added in 1.1) and generics (coming up in 1.5): those are pretty huge additions to the language too. This being said, XPath 2.0 is mostly backward-compatible with 1.0, so I don't see how the nature of the language is changed. Then adding variables, iterators, and conditionals to XPath was much needed, and not too shocking an addition to me. But I understand that you are referring more to the issue of typing in XPath 2.0? -Erik Eric van der Vlist wrote: > On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 19:14, Erik Bruchez wrote: > > >>Also, there is a natural need for more functionality. If you were to >>look at the evolution of Java over the last eight years, what would >>you find out? My guess is that Java has largely beaten the market >>growth ;-) > > > IMO, complexity is not the main point here. What's happening with XPath > 2.0 is that you're changing the nature of the language, like if you said > for Java: "the next version will not be interpreted but compiled" or > "the next version will be dynamically typed" or maybe more to the point > "you will have to provide a UML model before you can define a class in > the next version". > > Eric >
|
