Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
So syntax is not trivial? len From: Norman Gray [mailto:norman@a...] Len, On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > The case > for alternative syntaxes is weaker if all they do > is enable faster typing in an ASCII editor. Then > they are just more stuff. But it's not about _faster_[1], it's about writing correct code. As Pete said: > But IME the power in a representation of data is in the > patterns it allows the user to observe and create, not the amount of > compression it supports (though compression brings features spacially closer > together so pattern mining becomes easier). And as Bob said (again): > If on the other hand, you mean that because notation is important as a > vehicle for thought syntax should be tailored to be appropriate to the > application and the intended audience, then I would heartily agree. > Syntax is not trivial. We don't need to go back to the language-and-thought thread of a few months ago, in order to agree that how programming languages look is important. A language that is hard to read is hard to write, and that's as true of XSLT-in-XML as it is of anything else. Thus this discussion isn't about _compact_ syntax, but (human) _readable_ syntax. I've adjusted the thread subject accordingly, since we're not really talking about XUL any more.
|
