Re: OO and scripting

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
> decried at it's inception too.. and today's dominant languages are, to
> extent or another, OO (admittedly, languages like VB, Pearl and Python
> 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
> 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 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

> Realistically, I doubt either view is superior to the other. My bias is
> towards a peer view of the world where documents can be

...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
> 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

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread