Excuse me, but there is NOTHING decent about "make". As long as we were talking about syntax, how do you like the way makefiles distinguish between indentation with tabs and spaces.
One of the coolest parts of the Java tool chain is ant, which uses XML instead of make's ridiculous syntax.
Ant has its limitations because it doesn't provide an actual scripting language. That's one of the problems that Jelly is attempting to address.
Another approach to programming with XML that works well is embedding a traditional programming language like JavaScript in XML text content, and expressions in XML attributes, like OpenLaszlo.
-Don
Brad Paisley
Make a Mistake
Written by - Brad Paisley
From - Mud On the Tires
You over think things
You say what if we're not meant to be
Well you know what so what
Make a mistake with me
Nobody goes through this life and does
Everything perfectly
We're all gonna fail so you might as well
Make a mistake with me
Sometimes, baby, when we take
A chance that has this much at stake
We look back and in hindsight
What seemed wrong looks more like right
So I say worst case we'll be left with
Lots of good memories
This chance we have well it's worth that
So make a mistake with me
I'm tellin' you the right thing to do
Is make a mistake
Make a mistake
Make a mistake with me
Can you name a programming language that doesn't require you to balance all your parenthesis?
(Of course Forth lets you define words with any punctuation, even unbalanced parens, like "<BUILDS" and "DOES>", but the punctuation doesn't mean anything other than being a character in a token.)
By the way, please learn XML (and Lisp) before arguing that XML is a better syntax than Lisp. You can't use numbers as element names.
The XML page cannot be displayed
Cannot view XML input using XSL style sheet. Please correct the error and then click the Refresh button, or try again later.
A name was started with an invalid character. Error processing resource 'file:///C:/temp/moronic.xml'
<1><2><3><4><5>this</5></4></3></2></1>
-^
1) Lisp is a data format, as the previous poster pointed out. Shame on you for missing one of the most important points about Lisp.
2) XML is a data format, which is used for many different programming languages. Shame on you for missing one of the most important points about XML.
Even if you didn't score zero out of two, what is it about XML's angled brackets that make it ok to use twice as many of them, than Lisp's parenthesis? Is it the smooth curves of the Lisp parens that you object to? Or is it the fact that XML has twice as many angled brackets, that makes XML ok? Or do you have a better reason for your fear of parenthesis?
Another point: Your "(((((this)))))" example is a straw man argument. Lisp programs use white space and indentation to make the structure clear, just like any other programming language.
Please show me how you can express an 5-deep nested array in any other language, without using some kind of parens, or several lines of imparitive code like "a=new Array(); b=new Array(); c=new Array(); d=new Array(); e=new Array(); e.append("foo"); d.append(e); c.append(d); b.append(c); a.append(b)". (That imparitive approach uses 20 parens, instead of just 10!)
SkunkWeb looks interesting, and I'll definitely check it out. Thanks for the recommendation.
I'm also interested in other Python based web frameworks. I've done lots of Zope/Plone programming, and I share your frustration with that "skyscraper stack" of software. I'm curious to know why you think webware and cherrypy suck.
I've been using an ORM (object relational manager) called SQLObject, by Ian Bicking (the author of Webware), and it seems to work pretty well. (It's pretty simple so it doesn't do everything, but it's extensible.)
I'd love to know what you think of PyDO2, the ORM in Skunkweb? How does it compare to Ruby on Rails' ORM, ActiveRecord?
At first glance at the sample code you provided, I noticed that it uses a non-standard variant of XML syntax. That is a big show-stopper problem, which means you can't develop your templates with any off-the-shelf XML editors, and you can't take advantage of any of the standard XML tools to process, generate and validate templates. If you're not going to use standard XML syntax, then why bother making it look anything like XML at all, since you've forsaken the entire universe of XML tools.
If you're going to invent your own markup language, then you'd better have the resources of IBM and 30 years to invest in reinventing the wheel. Otherwise, the benefits of sticking with standard XML syntax far outweigh any upside of bastardizing it with your own special syntax enhancements.
"Doh! Why do we need to learn from the past? Everyone knows that we don't have to study history to avoid repeating the mistakes and building on the successes of the past. God wrote everything we'll ever need to know into the bible. It's a creationist fact!"
Is it about "*aweful*" syntax, or awful spelling? Or are you full of awe?
What's wrong with parenthesis? If you hate parenthesis, then do you hate XML twice as much as Lisp?
Lisp syntax is excellent because it's simple and consistent, and that's the reason Lisp macros are so powerful. Perl syntax is absolutely awful, and that's the reason Perl will never have macros like Lisp.
Oh, come on: Parrot was an April Fools joke about merging Perl and Python.
It was funny joke when it originally came out. The reason it was funny was that no Python programmer in their right mind would ever think of merging Python with Perl -- why take such a giant step backwards, for no good reason?
It was even funnier that so many Perl programmers took Parrot seriously, and actually wanted to merge Perl and Python. But that's because Perl is so hopelessly flawed, that it seemed like a good idea to those people.
It's hillarious that they can't see why it's such a bad idea, because they're so blinded by Perl. But it's sad that anyone's actually wasted any effort on Parrot.
It would be much less effort to just learn a decent programming language like Python or Lisp, instead of putting so much work into hopelessly trying to salvage a sucky programming language like Perl.
If you want to implement all sorts of small domain specific languages, then you need something like Lisp macros. Perl doesn't have macros like Lisp, and it never will, because Perl's pointlessly ridiculous syntax makes that impossible.
If you're afraid of parenthesis, then you'd better not use XML! It has TWICE as many parens as Lisp. You should get a job flipping burgers or something, instead.
Flex is outrageously priced, and its future is in Flux now that Adobe is going to buy Macromedia.
Flex was inspired by Laszlo (in spite of the fact that Tim O'Reilly is confused and mistakenly thinks it's the other way around).
OpenLaszlo is an excellent open source web programming language based on XML and JavaScript. Your class declarations, object instantiations and configuration constraints are all defined in XML, with JavaScript expressions in attributes and JavaScript methods in text content.
OpenLaszlo strikes an elegant balance between XML and JavaScript, so Laszlo code is quite clean and easy to read and maintain. IBM has developed an Eclipse IDE plug-in for creating Laszlo applications with drag-and-drop and XML outline editors.
You can see for yourself how easy it is to develop interactive graphical web applications in XML+JavaScript with OpenLaszlo: Laszlo in 10 minutes. You can actually see, modify and run Laszlo scripts over the web, to learn how it works.
If you like Laszlo and want to learn more, then you can download the entire Laszlo source code, documentation and examples for free, and start developing your own Laszlo applications, without paying any exhorbinant licensing fees like Flex requires (on the order of $12,000 per server).
Anyone who tries to tell you that AJAX is "new technology" has been mistaking it for cocaine.
Special Hazard Precautions for AJAX:
INGESTION: NAUSEA, VOMITING, AND DIARRHEA.
EYES: EYE IRRITANT UPON DIRECT CONTACT. SKIN: MAY CAUSE SKIN IRRITATION
UPON PROLONGED CONTACT. INHALATION: NONE UNDER NORMAL USE. PROLONGED
INHALATION BY UNORTHODOX USE (NON-WETTED) OR ABUSE (SNIFFING) COULD PRODUCE
LUNG DISEASE (SILICOSIS). N/K
Emergency/First Aid Proc: INGEST: IF EATEN/DRUNK--YOU MAY THROW UP. DRINK
SIPS OF WATER/MILK. IF VOMIT CONTINUES, CALL POISON CTR/DR. EYES: IRRIT.
FLUSH W/WATER 15 MIN. IF IRRIT PERSISTS, CALL POISON CTR/DR. SKIN: IRRIT.
REMOVE WET CLOTHES. FLUSH W/WARM WATER 15 MIN. IF IRRIT PERSISTS, CALL
DR/POISON CTR. INHAL: IF INHALED, MAY COUGH. TAKE SLOW DEEP BREATHS OF
FRESH AIR, SIP WATER. IF COUGH PERSISTS, CALL DR/POISON CTR.
If you know so much about Lisp, then why don't you take a crack at addressing the issues I raised in the following post titled "Higher Order Perl trying to be more like Lisp".
While you're at it, why don't you back up some of your baseless claims with references to your sources of information, instead of simply repeating them?
First of all, Lisp is just as useful for imperative programming as any other language, so it's not a question of Lisp=declarative, Perl=imparative -- it's a question of other languages catching up to Lisp.
Perl has been gradually tacking on closures, declarative programming, metaprogramming and other lisp-like features to the language, in a piecemeal fashion. But Perl will NEVER have a powerful, simple macro system like Lisp, since Perl's fractal syntax makes that totally impractical.
The Perl Review: Why did you write Higher Order Perl?
Mark Jason Dominus: My main reasons were as I explained in the preface of the book: It had become increasingly clear to me that most Perl programmers seemed to be writing C programs in Perl, and that it was possible to do a lot better than that. We have a really good tool, and it's a shame that we're using it the same way that we have to use the old crappy tool.
[...]
TPR: At the start, you compare Perl, Lisp, and C and say that Perl is more like Lisp than C. Do you think Perl would be as powerful if it was closer to C? Could it be more powerful if it was closer to Lisp?
MJD: I don't think anyone thinks that Perl would be more powerful if it were closer to C. In the 1980s, Unix sysadmins wrote in C and in Bourne Shell, and Perl has largely replaced both of those for those sorts of tasks, leaving C a fairly small niche.
In the preface of Higher-Order Perl, I said that Perl shares six of Norvig's "seven features that make Lisp Different". The seventh one is the one that Norvig calls "uniform syntax". That's the one that led Larry to say that Lisp looks like oatmeal with fingernail clippings mixed in. But it enables language features that are so powerful that they're almost unimaginable to people who haven't studied Lisp. It's really hard to do justice to the huge benefit that Lisp gets from its simple and uniform syntax, which Perl just doesn't have at all. Any attempt to construct Perl code dynamically is fraught with error, and we take it for granted that it won't work. For example, in the documentation of the Perl6::Subs module that was recently released, Chip Salzenberg says "This module is a source filter. Source filters always break." And I think that's true. But source filters in Lisp are easy to write, and they never break. Lisp's main assignment operator, "setf", is implemented with a source filter. So if Perl were more like Lisp in that sense, I think it might be more powerful. On the other hand, I don't think it would be very Perl-like.
Ok, so now you're arguing that the ease of use of a language is directly related to its popularity, and that Dijkstra didn't mean what he said?
What makes you think Dijkstra wasn't serious? You're just guessing and hoping he wasn't serious, but you're still acting like you're hopelessly brain damaged, so that certainly supports his statement.
You're the one who brings up conspiracy and tinfoil hats -- I certainly didn't imply there was any conspiracy, so you're jumping to conclusions and attacking a straw man, because you have no better argument.
I think you're a wonderful example who perfectly illustrates my point: that many Perl advocates enjoy that vile language, because they're brain damaged beyond redemption. They hate Lisp with a passion, because their brain damage makes it impossible for them to understand such a simple, elegant language.
Do the responsible thing, and stop advocating Perl. Go ahead and use it yourself, since you're beyond hope, but don't try to drag anyone else down into the pit you've fallen into. That's simply irresponsible.
You're living proof that Edsger W. Dijkstra was right when he said: "It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration."
And no, you're not right about what you posted. Where did you ever get the silly idea that declarative programming was unnatural for the human brain?
You shouldn't use your own brain as a yardstick: it's mutilated beyond hope of regeneration because you learned Basic as your first language. It's no big surprise that you use Perl regularly, due to your unfortunate brain damage.
Please post references backing up your claims about declarative programming, instead of just repeating yourself.
It sounds like you don't actually know Perl or Lisp, because the assumptions you're making and the conclusions you're reaching are all dead wrong.
If you don't actually know Perl and Lisp, then you're not qualified to make unsupported statements comparing them like that. So please share your source of wisdom that tells you that "the human brain takes more naturally to a straight-forward imperative languages"?
If you've only seen programs represented by XML "a couple of times", then how are you qualified to understand them? I'm sure you would find Perl and Lisp programs incomprehensible too, if you only saw those languages "a couple of times". Your own ignorance and incomprehension are not valid arguments that a language is flawed.
You declare that Lisp is unnatural for the human brain, but maybe it's your brain that's impared?
Your mistaken belief that declarative languages are hard to understand might have been caused by learning BASIC as your first language.
Edsger W. Dijkstra observed in Selected Writings on Computing: A Personal Perspective that "It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration."
I program in XML all the time with OpenLaszlo, and I love it.
XSLT is a weak, horrible programming language, which gives other XML based programming langauges a bad name. It's only useful for performing simple XML text transformations, but not for programming interactive networked XML data driven graphical user interfaces, which OpenLaszlo is great at.
OpenLaszlo is an excellent open source web programming language based on XML and JavaScript. Your class declarations, object instantiations and configuration constraints are all defined in XML, with JavaScript expressions in attributes and JavaScript methods in text content.
OpenLaszlo strikes an elegant balance between XML and JavaScript, so Laszlo code is quite clean and easy to read and maintain. IBM has developed an Eclipse IDE plug-in for creating Laszlo applications with drag-and-drop and XML outline editors.
You can see for yourself how easy it is to develop interactive graphical web applications in XML+JavaScript with OpenLaszlo: Laszlo in 10 minutes. You can actually see, modify and run Laszlo scripts over the web, to learn how it works.
Slashdot Mirror
-Don
One of the coolest parts of the Java tool chain is ant, which uses XML instead of make's ridiculous syntax.
Ant has its limitations because it doesn't provide an actual scripting language. That's one of the problems that Jelly is attempting to address.
Another approach to programming with XML that works well is embedding a traditional programming language like JavaScript in XML text content, and expressions in XML attributes, like OpenLaszlo.
-Don
Brad Paisley
Make a Mistake
Written by - Brad Paisley
From - Mud On the Tires
You over think things
You say what if we're not meant to be
Well you know what so what
Make a mistake with me
Nobody goes through this life and does
Everything perfectly
We're all gonna fail so you might as well
Make a mistake with me
Sometimes, baby, when we take
A chance that has this much at stake
We look back and in hindsight
What seemed wrong looks more like right
So I say worst case we'll be left with
Lots of good memories
This chance we have well it's worth that
So make a mistake with me
I'm tellin' you the right thing to do
Is make a mistake
Make a mistake
Make a mistake with me
(Of course Forth lets you define words with any punctuation, even unbalanced parens, like "<BUILDS" and "DOES>", but the punctuation doesn't mean anything other than being a character in a token.)
-Don
The XML page cannot be displayed
Cannot view XML input using XSL style sheet. Please correct the error and then click the Refresh button, or try again later.
A name was started with an invalid character. Error processing resource 'file:///C:/temp/moronic.xml' <1><2><3><4><5>this</5></4></3></2></1>
-^
-Don
1) Lisp is a data format, as the previous poster pointed out. Shame on you for missing one of the most important points about Lisp.
2) XML is a data format, which is used for many different programming languages. Shame on you for missing one of the most important points about XML.
Even if you didn't score zero out of two, what is it about XML's angled brackets that make it ok to use twice as many of them, than Lisp's parenthesis? Is it the smooth curves of the Lisp parens that you object to? Or is it the fact that XML has twice as many angled brackets, that makes XML ok? Or do you have a better reason for your fear of parenthesis?
Another point: Your "(((((this)))))" example is a straw man argument. Lisp programs use white space and indentation to make the structure clear, just like any other programming language.
Please show me how you can express an 5-deep nested array in any other language, without using some kind of parens, or several lines of imparitive code like "a=new Array(); b=new Array(); c=new Array(); d=new Array(); e=new Array(); e.append("foo"); d.append(e); c.append(d); b.append(c); a.append(b)". (That imparitive approach uses 20 parens, instead of just 10!)
-Don
I'm also interested in other Python based web frameworks. I've done lots of Zope/Plone programming, and I share your frustration with that "skyscraper stack" of software. I'm curious to know why you think webware and cherrypy suck.
I've been using an ORM (object relational manager) called SQLObject, by Ian Bicking (the author of Webware), and it seems to work pretty well. (It's pretty simple so it doesn't do everything, but it's extensible.)
I'd love to know what you think of PyDO2, the ORM in Skunkweb? How does it compare to Ruby on Rails' ORM, ActiveRecord?
At first glance at the sample code you provided, I noticed that it uses a non-standard variant of XML syntax. That is a big show-stopper problem, which means you can't develop your templates with any off-the-shelf XML editors, and you can't take advantage of any of the standard XML tools to process, generate and validate templates. If you're not going to use standard XML syntax, then why bother making it look anything like XML at all, since you've forsaken the entire universe of XML tools.
If you're going to invent your own markup language, then you'd better have the resources of IBM and 30 years to invest in reinventing the wheel. Otherwise, the benefits of sticking with standard XML syntax far outweigh any upside of bastardizing it with your own special syntax enhancements.
-Don
-Don
What's wrong with parenthesis? If you hate parenthesis, then do you hate XML twice as much as Lisp?
Lisp syntax is excellent because it's simple and consistent, and that's the reason Lisp macros are so powerful. Perl syntax is absolutely awful, and that's the reason Perl will never have macros like Lisp.
-Don
-Don
-Don
It was funny joke when it originally came out. The reason it was funny was that no Python programmer in their right mind would ever think of merging Python with Perl -- why take such a giant step backwards, for no good reason?
It was even funnier that so many Perl programmers took Parrot seriously, and actually wanted to merge Perl and Python. But that's because Perl is so hopelessly flawed, that it seemed like a good idea to those people.
It's hillarious that they can't see why it's such a bad idea, because they're so blinded by Perl. But it's sad that anyone's actually wasted any effort on Parrot.
It would be much less effort to just learn a decent programming language like Python or Lisp, instead of putting so much work into hopelessly trying to salvage a sucky programming language like Perl.
If you want to implement all sorts of small domain specific languages, then you need something like Lisp macros. Perl doesn't have macros like Lisp, and it never will, because Perl's pointlessly ridiculous syntax makes that impossible.
-Don
-Don
-Don
-Don
-Don
Flex was inspired by Laszlo (in spite of the fact that Tim O'Reilly is confused and mistakenly thinks it's the other way around).
OpenLaszlo is an excellent open source web programming language based on XML and JavaScript. Your class declarations, object instantiations and configuration constraints are all defined in XML, with JavaScript expressions in attributes and JavaScript methods in text content.
OpenLaszlo strikes an elegant balance between XML and JavaScript, so Laszlo code is quite clean and easy to read and maintain. IBM has developed an Eclipse IDE plug-in for creating Laszlo applications with drag-and-drop and XML outline editors.
You can see for yourself how easy it is to develop interactive graphical web applications in XML+JavaScript with OpenLaszlo: Laszlo in 10 minutes. You can actually see, modify and run Laszlo scripts over the web, to learn how it works.
If you like Laszlo and want to learn more, then you can download the entire Laszlo source code, documentation and examples for free, and start developing your own Laszlo applications, without paying any exhorbinant licensing fees like Flex requires (on the order of $12,000 per server).
-Don
Special Hazard Precautions for AJAX:
INGESTION: NAUSEA, VOMITING, AND DIARRHEA. EYES: EYE IRRITANT UPON DIRECT CONTACT. SKIN: MAY CAUSE SKIN IRRITATION UPON PROLONGED CONTACT. INHALATION: NONE UNDER NORMAL USE. PROLONGED INHALATION BY UNORTHODOX USE (NON-WETTED) OR ABUSE (SNIFFING) COULD PRODUCE LUNG DISEASE (SILICOSIS). N/K
Emergency/First Aid Proc: INGEST: IF EATEN/DRUNK--YOU MAY THROW UP. DRINK SIPS OF WATER/MILK. IF VOMIT CONTINUES, CALL POISON CTR/DR. EYES: IRRIT. FLUSH W/WATER 15 MIN. IF IRRIT PERSISTS, CALL POISON CTR/DR. SKIN: IRRIT. REMOVE WET CLOTHES. FLUSH W/WARM WATER 15 MIN. IF IRRIT PERSISTS, CALL DR/POISON CTR. INHAL: IF INHALED, MAY COUGH. TAKE SLOW DEEP BREATHS OF FRESH AIR, SIP WATER. IF COUGH PERSISTS, CALL DR/POISON CTR.
Here's the entire Ajax information sheet, with more warnings and hazard precautions.
-Don
While you're at it, why don't you back up some of your baseless claims with references to your sources of information, instead of simply repeating them?
-Don
Perl has been gradually tacking on closures, declarative programming, metaprogramming and other lisp-like features to the language, in a piecemeal fashion. But Perl will NEVER have a powerful, simple macro system like Lisp, since Perl's fractal syntax makes that totally impractical.
-Don
Interview with Mark Jason Dominus
The Perl Review: Why did you write Higher Order Perl?
Mark Jason Dominus: My main reasons were as I explained in the preface of the book: It had become increasingly clear to me that most Perl programmers seemed to be writing C programs in Perl, and that it was possible to do a lot better than that. We have a really good tool, and it's a shame that we're using it the same way that we have to use the old crappy tool.
[...]
TPR: At the start, you compare Perl, Lisp, and C and say that Perl is more like Lisp than C. Do you think Perl would be as powerful if it was closer to C? Could it be more powerful if it was closer to Lisp?
MJD: I don't think anyone thinks that Perl would be more powerful if it were closer to C. In the 1980s, Unix sysadmins wrote in C and in Bourne Shell, and Perl has largely replaced both of those for those sorts of tasks, leaving C a fairly small niche.
In the preface of Higher-Order Perl, I said that Perl shares six of Norvig's "seven features that make Lisp Different". The seventh one is the one that Norvig calls "uniform syntax". That's the one that led Larry to say that Lisp looks like oatmeal with fingernail clippings mixed in. But it enables language features that are so powerful that they're almost unimaginable to people who haven't studied Lisp. It's really hard to do justice to the huge benefit that Lisp gets from its simple and uniform syntax, which Perl just doesn't have at all. Any attempt to construct Perl code dynamically is fraught with error, and we take it for granted that it won't work. For example, in the documentation of the Perl6::Subs module that was recently released, Chip Salzenberg says "This module is a source filter. Source filters always break." And I think that's true. But source filters in Lisp are easy to write, and they never break. Lisp's main assignment operator, "setf", is implemented with a source filter. So if Perl were more like Lisp in that sense, I think it might be more powerful. On the other hand, I don't think it would be very Perl-like.
What makes you think Dijkstra wasn't serious? You're just guessing and hoping he wasn't serious, but you're still acting like you're hopelessly brain damaged, so that certainly supports his statement.
You're the one who brings up conspiracy and tinfoil hats -- I certainly didn't imply there was any conspiracy, so you're jumping to conclusions and attacking a straw man, because you have no better argument.
I think you're a wonderful example who perfectly illustrates my point: that many Perl advocates enjoy that vile language, because they're brain damaged beyond redemption. They hate Lisp with a passion, because their brain damage makes it impossible for them to understand such a simple, elegant language.
Do the responsible thing, and stop advocating Perl. Go ahead and use it yourself, since you're beyond hope, but don't try to drag anyone else down into the pit you've fallen into. That's simply irresponsible.
-Don
And no, you're not right about what you posted. Where did you ever get the silly idea that declarative programming was unnatural for the human brain?
You shouldn't use your own brain as a yardstick: it's mutilated beyond hope of regeneration because you learned Basic as your first language. It's no big surprise that you use Perl regularly, due to your unfortunate brain damage.
Please post references backing up your claims about declarative programming, instead of just repeating yourself.
-Don
Yes what? Which was it: BASIC, C, Pascal or Fortran?
What are you still right about?
-Don
If you don't actually know Perl and Lisp, then you're not qualified to make unsupported statements comparing them like that. So please share your source of wisdom that tells you that "the human brain takes more naturally to a straight-forward imperative languages"?
If you've only seen programs represented by XML "a couple of times", then how are you qualified to understand them? I'm sure you would find Perl and Lisp programs incomprehensible too, if you only saw those languages "a couple of times". Your own ignorance and incomprehension are not valid arguments that a language is flawed.
You declare that Lisp is unnatural for the human brain, but maybe it's your brain that's impared?
Your mistaken belief that declarative languages are hard to understand might have been caused by learning BASIC as your first language.
Edsger W. Dijkstra observed in Selected Writings on Computing: A Personal Perspective that "It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration."
-Don
XSLT is a weak, horrible programming language, which gives other XML based programming langauges a bad name. It's only useful for performing simple XML text transformations, but not for programming interactive networked XML data driven graphical user interfaces, which OpenLaszlo is great at.
OpenLaszlo is an excellent open source web programming language based on XML and JavaScript. Your class declarations, object instantiations and configuration constraints are all defined in XML, with JavaScript expressions in attributes and JavaScript methods in text content.
OpenLaszlo strikes an elegant balance between XML and JavaScript, so Laszlo code is quite clean and easy to read and maintain. IBM has developed an Eclipse IDE plug-in for creating Laszlo applications with drag-and-drop and XML outline editors.
You can see for yourself how easy it is to develop interactive graphical web applications in XML+JavaScript with OpenLaszlo: Laszlo in 10 minutes. You can actually see, modify and run Laszlo scripts over the web, to learn how it works.
-Don