[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: xml + ruby

paul vudmaska

10/3/2003 8:20:00 PM


--- Zach Dennis <zdennis@mktec.com> wrote:
> James,
>
> Are the people on this thread suffering from a case
> of programmatic idealism, underuse or misuse of
> rexml
> or is rexml lacking some of the things mentioned on
> this thread?
>
.....<<

Hi All,

This is my final comment here on rexml. Thanks for
your interesting comments.

I'd probably fall into the 'programmatic idealistic'
side. I wont boast more than a month's or so
experience with Ruby so i probably should not have
started the thread.

I like REXML a lot, it feels as close to the language
as any xml api i've used.(i've used xml a lot since
2000 - and when i started i had my reservations) Then
i ran accross e4x and thot, the fellas here would be
interested and i believe ruby has a better chance of
implementing it elegantly. Period. I'm really not
experienced, educated enough to comment persuasively
on the implementation, or with any real insight, as
you've so adroitly pointed out. I should have prefaced
my original comment with that, looking back.

things i know.
1) xml is increasingly becoming fundamental (might be
thot of as a common type in my mind).
2) it is very important for my development - from the
design(requirements) to the implementation(config
files - cached state). And many others(cocoon,xsp...)
3) REXML is the best xml API i've found
4) REXML works just fine as it is
5) My comments were not meant to be derisive,
condesending or contentious.

things i think i know
1) e4x wont be the only language that attempts to fold

xml into it natively. It is in the evolutionary path
of any general purpose language, imo
2) tho this thread has been futile (mostly my own
doing), there are knowledgable folks considering the
implementation very seriously
3) when it is fluidly embedded in the language you
will wonder what you did without it
4) Ruby and REXML will be better at that time

bye,paul vudmaska



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping...
1 Answer

why the lucky stiff

10/3/2003 9:09:00 PM

0

On Friday 03 October 2003 02:20 pm, paul vudmaska wrote:
>
> I'd probably fall into the 'programmatic idealistic'
> side. I wont boast more than a month's or so
> experience with Ruby so i probably should not have
> started the thread.
>

Heya, thanks for the thread. I think your willingness to jump into
conversation on the list despite your newness to Ruby is really cool. Sure,
there's dissenting opinions. You have your own vision for how you'd like to
use the language and what the potential future for the language could be.
I'm sure continued thought will yield good things.

Don't regret the discussion. Some say there's too much banter and volume on
the list, but at the same time we measure Ruby's success by the volume on the
list.

> 1) e4x wont be the only language that attempts to fold
> xml into it natively. It is in the evolutionary path
> of any general purpose language, imo

I think ideas like this could be experimented with outside of core. Meaning:
someone with the can-do spirit checks out Ruby from CVS and hacks away. An
idea like this could be more convincing if available as a set of patches or
alternative interpreter (such as Stackless Python). Sounds similiar to e4x
already, eh?

It'd be great if everyone in our community accepted everyone and every idea
that was presented (a wealth of endless backslapping that began to take its
toll on our shoulder blades), but I think chipping away at an idea will
enhance it. Anyways, the idea has merit and I'd love to see some working
ideas that ensure the implosion of my brain.

_why