Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Robin Berjon wrote:
> No, I don't think that's true. If the DOM had been created for
> Javascript it would be a *lot* less horrible than all the hoops it had
> to jump through to support utterly braindead languages like Java.
And if DOM had been created for Java it would be a *lot* less horrible
than all the hoops it had to jump through to support utterly braindead
languages like C++.
And if DOM had been created for C++ it would be a *lot* less horrible
than all the hoops it had to jump through to support utterly braindead
languages like Perl.
And if DOM had been created for Perl it would be a *lot* less horrible
than all the hoops it had to jump through to support utterly braindead
languages like JavaScript.
The mistake was not anyone language's. It was trying to be all things to
all languages. That approach is doomed to failure.
> The reason alternatives to the DOM have not been all that successful for
> Java is because Java is all about cargo-culting and pain. Cargo-culting
> as in you throw IO exceptions when you write to memory, because it looks
> like what the other guys are doing (I don't even count those anymore),
> so if other folks are using the DOM you use the same, none of that crazy
> new stuff can possibly be any good. Pain as in if you've resigned
> yourself to need seven lines of code to open a text file for writing,
FileWriter out = new FileWriter("filename.txt");
One line. What's so hard about that? Of course you can make it more
complex if you like. You'd probably want to do that in order avoid
assumptions about file system conventions, character encodings, current
working directories, and the like. However you need to do that in Perl,
Python, etc. as well.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@m...
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
|
