Those of you who have been wanting to use Lisp but just can't deal with
all those parentheses, your salvation has arrived:
http://www.waterlang.org/
The power of Lisp with the syntactic elegance of XML! Who would have thought?
Be sure to check out the lovely code snippets in the quick reference guide:
http://www.waterlang.org/quick_reference_guide.html
Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'm going to go beat my head against a
wall until the pain stops.
E.
From: Steven E. Harris
Subject: Re: (= (+ (- Lisp s-expressions) XML-syntax) Water)
Date:
Message-ID: <q67ptksin7q.fsf@raytheon.com>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> The power of Lisp with the syntactic elegance of XML! Who would
> have thought?
I remember seeing this last year and concluding that it must be a
joke. But now it looks like they're not joking, and that's so sad that
it's funny.
Why would anyone think this is a good idea? How does the XML-like
syntax add anything other than baseless comfort through superficial
association? They plead their case in "Water Rationale"� and, as they
say there, "It is a MESS."
What about the Web requires a special programming language? Isn't that
part of the idea behind the Web, that isolating host and
implementation language details behind a least common denominator
transport and notation frees us from caring about something like this?
That XML -- a serialization syntax -- should shape a programming
language source syntax and data model just seems backwards. What a
waste. At least they got to write a book about it. I would have
recommended hiding instead.
Footnotes:
� http://www.waterlang.org/doc/water_rationale.htm
--
Steven E. Harris :: ········@raytheon.com
Raytheon :: http://www.raytheon.com
Erann Gat wrote:
> Those of you who have been wanting to use Lisp but just can't deal with
> all those parentheses, your salvation has arrived:
>
> http://www.waterlang.org/
>
> The power of Lisp with the syntactic elegance of XML! Who would have thought?
>
> Be sure to check out the lovely code snippets in the quick reference guide:
>
> http://www.waterlang.org/quick_reference_guide.html
>
> Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'm going to go beat my head against a
> wall until the pain stops.
>
> E.
For a different and IMHO much cleaner take on a similar idea, have a look at
MetaHTML (www.metahtml.org). The unification of XML-like and LISP-like syntax
need not be so forced and ugly.
--Bill
maddox AT transmeta DOT COM
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> The power of Lisp with the syntactic elegance of XML! Who would
> have thought?
It's next-gen COBOL!
--
Alan Shutko <···@acm.org> - I am the rocks.
"Come up to us and we will show you a thing." -- 1 Samuel 14:12
Alan Shutko <···@acm.org> writes:
> ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>
> > The power of Lisp with the syntactic elegance of XML! Who would
> > have thought?
>
> It's next-gen COBOL!
Java is the next-gen COBOL.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
"It's becoming popular? It must be in decline." -- Isaiah Berlin
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> Those of you who have been wanting to use Lisp but just can't deal with
> all those parentheses, your salvation has arrived:
>
> http://www.waterlang.org/
>
> The power of Lisp with the syntactic elegance of XML! Who would have thought?
Christopher Fry should be ashamed of himself.