in reply to is XML too hard?

XML too hard? It's just LISP, isn't it? Except with more typing.

Programmers grokked LISP 50 years ago. If XML is too hard, it says more about the quality of the programmers than of XML.


Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: is XML too hard?
by parv (Vicar) on Mar 17, 2003 at 23:59 UTC
    In that respect, XML documents should/need to be converted to Lisp programs. Then all one would need is Perl/Lisp interface, where Lisp would just give you what you ask Perl for.
Re: Re: is XML too hard?
by zby (Vicar) on Mar 18, 2003 at 08:32 UTC
    I don't know lisp but this analogy seems to me not quite correct. For instance how about this XML:
    <REALLYLONGNAME with_a_property='aaa'> some free form text <ANOTHERLON +GNAME>foo</ANOTHERLONGNAME> text text</REALLYLONG +NAME>
    How would you translate this to lisp?
        OK - I was fooled by the unquoted 'foo' in the first example.
      (REALLYLONGNAME ((with_a_property "aaa")) ("some free form text" (ANOTHERLONGNAME () ("foo")) "t +ext text"))


        OK. This allready has been answered in fact and I withdraw all my pretensions. For my explanation - I was lured by the lack of quoting in your first example.