On 1 October 2012 18:54, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 01 Oct 2012, at 19:44, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel@gmail.com> wrote:
please calm down. http://mist-project.org/ looks like an interesting project. Actually thank you for the pointer.
It sounds interesting, but there are other "we will start over from scratch" Smalltalk implementations that did not (yet) get anywhere, even after many years. We'll see. Fragmentation is never good. Although not as bad as in the Lisp world where literally everybody has its own implementation at one point ;-)
XML is not crap. JSON neither. You always talk about red pills and stuff.... :-)
And the last time in May this year we had a lively discussion about JSON you wanted to write a parser for literal arrays. You are right that you can express the same thing in Smalltalk. Maybe we should just do it.
Some people however do not mind to do mappings from one data format to another.
Yeah, Stef is more sensitive/vocal to this issue than others, but he has a point.
Even though the mappings are indeed harmless (I wrote many parsers and stuff in my life), you have to agree on 2 facts:
- one of Smalltalk strengths is its beautifull, simple yet powerful syntax
Smalltalk has a top level syntax? Oh, right. GNU Smalltalk. frank
- one of Java/whatever's ugly points is precisely the use of hunderds of lines of XML to do what is actually missing in the language
Even though JSON is nicer that XML, it might lead to similar problems.
Sven
-- Sven Van Caekenberghe http://stfx.eu Smalltalk is the Red Pill