Mark Day wrote:
> > > I think many involved in XML assume you'll use a nice editor to hide the
> > > syntax.
> > >
> > That never worked for Lisp. The s-exp syntax was always supposed to be an
> > internal syntax; the top-level syntax never got fully implemented. Once
> > people realized it was forthcoming, they tried to build smarter
> > editors ---
> > and instead ended up with editors that knew a whole lot about parens.
> The Lisp experience also suggests that we'll wind up with a bunch of people
> who don't understand the whining about XML syntax because they really do
> grok it as is. Many years ago (yea, verily, before the Web) I joined a
> research group that worked in Scheme. Even though I already "knew" Scheme
> there was a 3-4 month period where it was hard work to read other people's
> code. Then one day it was... suddenly... all... easy. A strange experience,
> and it seems to be like learning to ride a bicycle: i.e. once acquired, you
> don't ever lose it again.
Just like reading g++ STL syntax/type error messages... They're
typically a couple K long and seemed impossible to read but not I can
glance at them and tell what's wrong.
-- firstname.lastname@example.org http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:13:41 PDT