Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Are Extensible Programming Languages Coming?

Posted by michael on from the tabs!-spaces!-tabs!-spaces! dept.

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?"

2 of 838 comments (clear)

  1. Holy mother of all that is good, NO! by Mirk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Three and a bit years ago, as a satire on the absurd over-enthusiasm for all things XML that was then taking over the world, I invented a parody language, XMC. Guess what? The over-enthusiasm for XML has continued unabated and now has taken over the world. And so life imitates art.

    Herewith, a sample XMC program:

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?> <program language="c" xmlns="http:miketaylor.org.uk/xms/1.0/"> <include type="sysfile">stdio.h</include> <function type="int" name="main"> <params> !-- No parameters --> </params> <statement> <expression> <fncall fnname="printf"> <arguments> <argument> <constant type="int" value="0"/> </argument> </arguments> </fncall> </expression> </statement> <statement> <return> <constant type="int" value="0"/> </return> </statement> </function> </program>

    Exercises for the reader:
    1. What does this do?
    2. Is it easier to read than the corresponding C program?

    --

    --
    What short sigs we have -
    One hundred and twenty chars!
    Too short for haiku.
  2. One man's view on XML by marciot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I personally do not understand what the entire hype about XML is, or even specifically what problem it is supposed to solve. My understanding is that there was a big push for XML because of a perceived need for open document formats. The idea being that binary formats were proprietary, closed and non-portable.

    If this is the problem XML intends to solve, then I feel it is a miguided effort. Binary formats are "closed" only in so far as we do not have access to the source of the program that created them. Once that source is available, binary file formats are open, portable, and a hell of a lot more space efficient than XML. JPEG is a binary file format, yet we have open standards and the committee who designed it released open source reference implementations of the decoder and encoder. Hence, JPEG is an open format and nobody goes around trying to stuff pixels in XML files.

    I really think XML is a solution to the wrong problem. The problem is closed source software, not binary files.

    -- Marcio