Are Extensible Programming Languages Coming?

gManZboy writes "Programming writer and instructor Greg Wilson is proposing that the next generation of programming languages will use XML to store not only such things as formatting (so you can see indentation your way, and I can see it my way, via XSLT) but even programmatic entities -- like: <invoke-expr method="myMethod"><evaluate>record</evaluate></invoke-expr>. Wacky, but perhaps wacky enough to be possible?"

Comments

shhhhh

[Neil Blender]

Larry Wall might be listening.

Yea, Good Idea

[the_mad_poster]

Oh, that would be just wonderful. I was just thinking about how I could take my nicely modularized source files and bloat them into 450kb monstrosities without actually adding any value along the way.

Wait, I have an idea, why don't we all just run this script before we start a new job and then paste bits of the junk output randomly throughout the source files?

perl -e "print pack 'c*', rand(255) for(1..$ARGV[0]);" 2500

Dumbest. Idea. Ever.

Damn...

[ackthpt]

They should have put the < and > keys in the middle of the keyboard.

Short answer, no

[Anonymous Coward]

<content="N0!!!!!!!!!!!!!">
</answer>

Re:Short answer, no

[shogun]

You left the DTD off, we'll unfortunantly have to ignore your reponse.

Re:Short answer, no

[legirons]

Think you missed some punctuation...

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<answer type="long" xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/TR/slashdot/answer">
<content="![CDATA[N0&exclamation;&exclamation;&exc lamation;&exclamation;&exclamation;&exclamation;&e xclamation;&exclamation;&exclamation;]]" />
</answer>

Re:Is this guy serious?

[lukewarmfusion]

No, don't you prefer this:

<invoke-expr method="myMethod"><evaluate>record</evaluate></inv oke-expr>

over this:

someObj.myMethod(record);

? I, for one, welcome the obscuring verbosity. It's a challenge. It's exciting. It's job security.

Re:Is this guy serious?

[mpcooke3]

They're trying to make the XML-programming more powerful. what about:

<execute instruction="true">100101110111</execute>

It's readable but, remains flexible.

Matt
Bah slashdot stripping away all the xml goodness

Re:Holy mother of all that is good, NO!

[Piquan]

At a guess, it segfaults when printf tries to read its formatting string and gets (on most platforms) a null pointer instead.

Re:Is this guy serious?

[Curtman]

If the tools are inconvenient to use or not suitable to the problem at hand, they don't get used.

Tell that to the Internet Explorer development team.

Re:You missed a key point in the article...

[Tackhead]

> We believe that next-generation programming systems will most likely store source code as XML, rather than as flat text. Programmers will not see or edit XML tags; instead, their editors will render these models to create human-friendly views, just like Web browsers and other WYSIWYG editors. For example, a program stored on disk like this:

Slashdot: IT/Security: Tuesday, January 18, 2006:
"New MyDOOM.OOP virus attacks programmers"

A new virus has been unleashed against developers. The new virus exploits an XML parsing vulnerability in /usr/local/vi and /usr/local/bin/emacs...

<comment><type="funny">

[ZiZ]

<do-in-order type="step">
<step order="1"><pontificate subject="programming languages"/></step>
<step order="2"><ellipsis/></step>
<step order="3"><invoke-slashdot cliche="list-of-steps">profit!</invoke-slashdot></ step>
</do-in-order>
<forget-formatting/>
<welc ome-overlords type="needlessly complicated, obfuscated, and wordy"/>
</invoke-slashdot>
</rant>
<remark type="obligatory-attempt-at-wit">But it could be worthwhile.</remark>
</type>
</comment>
<sig>

Re:Is this guy serious?

[interiot]

In the begining (1954, according to my O'Reilly poster) was Cobol. People moaned and complained.

Next came Lisp (1958). They had to literally invent garbage collection simply to be able to create the language. In 2005, garbage collection is finally starting to be found in almost every non-embedded language.

1982 brought us Postscript. It's new! Exciting new syntax. Well, okay, Lisp thought of it first.

1996 brought the world XML. Exciting new syntax! Again!

Re:Is this guy serious?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

And if it fails to help you keep your job, you have yet another XML item to add to your resume. :)

Re:Is this guy serious?

[ggambett]

I'm dying to know what the other 0.9% of programmers do!!!

Re:Silly article (Silly Post (Silly Reply))

[PylonHead]

So let me get this straight:

You're arguing that programming languages are hard to parse, because, if you don't use any of the tools developed over the last 35 years to parse programming languages, it's hard?

In a similar vein, you might find that building a set of shelves is hard if you don't use hammers, screwdrivers, and drills, but instead try to embed nails into the wood simply by slamming your head into them repeatedly.

Yay for <xml>.

[Anonymous Coward]

<response language="English">
<exclamation tone="sarcastic">
<word partofspeech="adjective" syllables="1">
<character encoding="ascii">W</character>
<character encoding="ascii">h</character>
<character encoding="ascii">a</character>
<character encoding="ascii">t</character>
</word>
<word partofspeech="indefinite article" syllables="1">
<character encoding="ascii">a</character>
</word>
<word partofspeech="adjective" syllables="1" emphasis="true">
<character encoding="ascii">g</character>
<character encoding="ascii">r</character>
<character encoding="ascii">e</character>
<character encoding="ascii">a</character>
<character encoding="ascii">t</character>
</word>
<word partofspeech="noun" syllables="1">
<character encoding="ascii">i</character>
<character encoding="ascii">d</character>
<character encoding="ascii">e</character>
<character encoding="ascii">a</character>
</word>
<punctuation>
<character encoding="ascii">!</character>
</punctuation>
</exclamation>
</response>

Convience and affordable

[drollexecutive]

Sounds like it would really work, like plus with a twist. Curve and engrave your own squares. The difference between machines and langauges are in the ends. The machine only reads code which it signifies patterned. Those of us building langauges pattern our own, postulating a purpose. Sounds really amazing that langauges are other than useless. I'd like to meet those guys. ThankYou. ThankYou. Refreshments and information are in the lobby when you leave.

Re:Is this guy serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that's just being silly. Good XML style would write code like this:

<instruction opcode="100000">
<source_register_1>00100</source_register_1>
<source_register_2>00101</source_register_2>
<destination_register>01010</destination_register>
</instruction>