[RLUG] The Nature of Lisp

[Brian Chrisman]

I thought it was a good article too.  My only beef is that the guy is 
unhappy with XML as a tree representation because it "involves a lot of 
typing".. :-)
It's pretty much trivial to xform between sexp & XML in comparison to 
say.. xforming between C/java and either sexp/XML.  Concept of 
attributes would be a little messy I guess, but a lot of people don't 
like those for very reasonable reasons anyways.  Namespaces are pretty 
directly transportable too.

The software I'm working on these days has probably 4-5 XML 
'languages'.... if there was a good sexp <--> XML both-way conversion 
standard which had an implementation I could play with, it might make 
our environment a little friendlier for people who either like the sexp 
syntax, or hate 'lots of typing'. :-)  It might also provide a gateway 
back towards lispitude. :)



n a wrote:

>
> thanks, interesting article. I do wish people would stop using that 
> esr quote in every intro-to-lisp article ever made though, the guy's 
> an idiot.
>
> Nick
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how 
> to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RLUG mailing list
> RLUG at rlug.org
> http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug