Subject: Re: OO and scripting From: "Matthew MacKenzie" <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 08:47:59 -0300 |
----- Original Message ----- From: David LeBlanc <whisper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 10:15 PM Subject: Re: OO and scripting > I guess that Berners-Lee and Kaye had a difference of opinion similar to > what I think you and I have.. what is a document, passive or active? OO was > decried at it's inception too.. and today's dominant languages are, to some > extent or another, OO (admittedly, languages like VB, Pearl and Python give > it more lip service then true OO). Perl (not Pearl....but close) allow you to program in a very OO fashion. Your uninformed statement is most likely based upon the fact that Perl gives you the choice to OO or not to OO. > > >I wasn't there but I see this story as incredibly important because it > >demonstrates the two different views of the world. On the one side is > >Alan, data and code are the same -- mix'em up. On the other side is Tim, > >data is data, code works on data. Code can be viewed as data but should > >not be mixed with the primary data. > > > Well, in response, a knife might be an object best used for slicing things, > but wouldn't it be aweful if it was somehow constrained such that it could > not be used in an emergency as a can opener? This is a dispute that is not all that likely to ever be solved....it is like the vi/emacs holy war. I agree with Tim....and I would venture to guess that many on this list agree, as this is the whole idea of XSL -- keeping code from data. People move from HTML to XML/XSL for this reason. > > Realistically, I doubt either view is superior to the other. My bias is > towards a peer view of the world where documents can be active/intelligent. ...and the data is lost when CompanyX decides to change their proprietary format 3 years down the road. At least data is always data, and thus is easy for a programmer to 'transform', and make it active and intelligent. Seperating data and code can allow the data's representation to mature with the latest technology...instead of becoming deprecated. > If the maintainers and editors of the XML specification (should we say that > with the same hushed reverence once reserved for the high priests of the > mainframe?) don't build something that people will use then what is the > point? As for their agreement, it is absolutely unecessary... XML is a > recommendation, not a law of god (err, excuse me, should that be a law of > Python?). So far as I know, the only broadly available easily obtainable > implementation (the one in IE 5) contains a <script> tag. Perhaps the > market has already spoken. The "market" has not yet spoken....just Microsoft....but I see your point. I like the script tag personally. __________________________ Matthew MacKenzie XML Global Technologies matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: OO and scripting, Paul Prescod | Thread | RE: OO and scripting, Gavin Thomas Nicol |
XLink: behavior must go!, Paul Prescod | Date | Re: <xsl-script>, Steve Ball |
Month |