Subject: Re: Heresy? Re: DSSSL WWW Enhancements From: lex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alex Milowski) Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 08:25:16 -0500 (CDT) |
> > I don't see how you will be able to fit all of the Scheme functional style > > into "some other syntax". > > That's easy. There are several functional languages with infix syntax. The > three most popular are Haskell, ML and Dylan. Note that in the early days, > Lisp had two syntaxes, parenthesized and more traditional. Ok, the answer to my question without researching it myself! ;-) > >It would seem to me that the goal for any > > DSSSL-oriented developer for the mass market should be a good front-end. > > I don't think we'll get to that point unless it catches on with the Dirty > Perl Hackers. Anyhow, there is a very large constituency between GUI-centric > end users and open-minded "connoisseurs" of functional languages. Most > ordinary programmers and webmasters fall into that large middle ground. I > am not content to cede them to incompatible technologies, nor to try to > convert them. The Lisp-people have been trying to persuade them with superior > technology for *decades*. Yes, true. > > Technically, I don't see what we gain by changing the syntax. A complex > > style-sheet or transformation will not cease to be complex. Hence, what is > > the point? > > Nothing technically. That's why I said that it is a good choice for the > core constituency of DSSSL, dedicated SGML-philes who are already used to > using "different" technologies (otherwise why aren't we using HTML and TeX > like everyone else). But to move the DSSSL model into the mainstream, we > may have to provide an alternative DSSSL syntax. Do we have to? That is my question. If we say that this is the *DSSSL* syntax without dragging in the whole lisp/scheme debate, isn't that sufficient? > > The fact that perl succeed with a rather cryptic language syntax suggests that > > it is not the syntax but what the language can do that makes something > > succeed. > > Perl's syntax uses idioms familiar to Unix hackers. It is only cryptic to the > uninformed. If I were Perl's core audience you can bet it would be > substantially less popular. The syntax and semantics are both gross! > But to Unix hackers, Perl is just like coming home. =) Yes, well, I'm a hardcode Unix hacker and I still think it is not a very good syntax. It is sufficient for me to do *many* things and that is why I use it. > There is a very heavy anti-parenthesis bias out there. Its unfortunate and > ignorant, but there it is. > > Another way to think of it, though, is the DSSSL vs. Scheme conundrum. DSSSL > is not Scheme with SGML facilities. It is a declarative stylesheet language > that has a Scheme-like expression language for programmatic extension. The > syntax emphasizes the former which scares off people who really don't want > any more functionality than CSS. > > Let me repeat that until the day I die I will use fully-parenthesized Lisp- > style DSSSL. I believe this to be the best syntax for those who are open- > minded enough to try it. I just want the DSSSL model, the flow objects, > the construction rules, modes, areas, ..., to be adopted beyond that > (unfortunately small) audience. Well, I think "alternative syntaxes" is going to be a whole world of trouble. ============================================================================== R. Alexander Milowski http://www.copsol.com/ alex@xxxxxxxxxx Copernican Solutions Incorporated (612) 379 - 3608 DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Heresy? Re: DSSSL WWW Enhanceme, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: Heresy? Re: DSSSL WWW Enhanceme, Dave Love |
Programmable or declarative stylesh, Paul Prescod | Date | Re: DSSSL syntax, Paul Prescod |
Month |