No, when i say ‘style’ i mean…what i want my 'data’
to look like.
:pv
David Wrote:
That’s how it works: there’s a core language, and then
there are
libraries and programs.
------------<<
… and core languages have types - of variable
complexity each suited for one purpose or another. I’m
suggesting xml would a mighty fine type - the logical
evolution of data -data about data. You can then
create your own types.
David Wrote:
You can’t put everything in the core
language.
-------------<<
Nope. And this mike make ruby fat, your right. Not
necessary part of the core(tho i would argue that it
should) but if required, if it were a native type, and
accessible like erik noted, i’d be real happy.
Tho i’m real happy using rexml now, anyway 
don’t make me go off unhappy and create my own damn
language either. I’ve got a name in mind already.
Booby ;->
i could be wrong, :pv
···
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
<<
Chad, Austin, my apologies, maybe it’s not a good
idea.
···
— Austin Ziegler austin@halostatue.ca wrote:
I’m not Chad, but as someone who liked what Chad did
and wrote a
follow-up library that (mostly) conformed to his
API, I can explain
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
Austin Ziegler wrote:
I’m not Chad, but as someone who liked what Chad did and wrote a
follow-up library that (mostly) conformed to his API, I can explain
exactly why I did it much the same way. Basically, Chad is
representing an object (a rich site summary, or a channel). That it
happens to correspond to an XML format is somewhat irrelevant. There
are actually four common variants on this, and two less common
variants. By designing channels as objects, it becomes relatively
easy to support those variant formats.
And this extends perhaps more so to such things as RDF and (XML) Topic
Maps. They both make extensive use of XML, but as a serialization
format. The markup is not the model, just a handy way of expressing it.
Once I’ve slurped in some XML I’m more interested in what role it’s
meant to play in a given context than in the specifics of angle brackets
and nested text. Creating objects around the syntax allows the
developer to focus more on the information set than on the serialization.
Now, I can see the value in having an XML-centric syntax available when
the XML-ness of something is the primary concern. This would be a great
benefit to XML folks who (for whatever reasons) choose Ruby for their
XML manipulation. They might rather focus on an XML view of the world,
rather than adopt Ruby idioms, for DOM or text manipulation.
Some of these ideas have been disccussed on the RubyGarden wiki:
I also proffered the idea of E4X-like syntax in Ruby, on the REXML
mailing list (ser-rexml-help@germane-software.com). There was a bit of
discussion, though overall it was not well recieved :).
By and large, it seems relatively easy to add such behavior when and
where you need it through the use of modules. I’m unconvinced there is
such a compelling need for this syntax in the core language.
(But such discussions may find there way into my presentation on the
state of XML processing in Ruby at RubyConf 2003. Be there or be square.)
James Britt
jbritt AT rubyxml DOT com
Erm. Yes. And Ruby does have a single core type: an object. Sure,
there’s some language syntax to help around other common types
defined in the C portion of the Ruby library (numerics, strings,
arrays, hashes), but I think you’re buying into the marketing hype
about XML. Ruby already provides data about data. If you create
your object hierarchy for your programs correctly.
XML is best suited as a transmission data type (except its
verbosity, but that’s neither here nor there). It allows for
meaningful data serialization across languages. It is not well
suited as a “native” data type – because it’s unnecessarily
verbose and doesn’t really provide meaningful information to the
program. If I have:
I am most likely to represent that as an object in my program:
class Address
attr_accessor :first
attr_accessor :last
end
I think you’re mixing up what is properly a separation of concerns
here.
-austin
···
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 02:36:41 +0900, paul vudmaska wrote:
David Black:
That’s how it works: there’s a core language, and then there are
libraries and programs.
… and core languages have types - of variable complexity each
suited for one purpose or another. I’m suggesting xml would a
mighty fine type - the logical evolution of data -data about data.
You can then create your own types.
–
austin ziegler * austin@halostatue.ca * Toronto, ON, Canada
software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2003.10.02
* 14.12.17
You can check out this link:
http://flashexperiments.insh-allah.com/AS-downloads.html
Some of the XML stuff is custom XML written in Actionscript(AS) by Branden
Hall and Colin Moock because Flash’s builtin XML parser was slow on large
files. I dont know if anyone else out there knows this works, but I would be
interested in experimenting with writing an XML Object in Ruby that worked
in a similiar way to Flash if no one else is working on it. I would write it
in Ruby of course and prefer someone else to write it in C.
I dont want to step on any toes, but I’m always up for a weekend of straight
programming. =)
-Zach
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Chad Fowler [mailto:chad@chadfowler.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:10 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: xml in Ruby or no xml it’s just a question
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Zach Dennis wrote:
I think it would be wonderful if Ruby could handle XML somewhat how Flash
Actionscript handles XML( but with a few tweaks here and there of
course ),
but the overall way that the Actionscript XML Object is a beautiful thing.
Or at least I think. I think it would be a plus.
Zach, do you have a link or an example? I’ve heard good things about
ActionScript’s XML handling myself.
Chad
— James Britt jamesUNDERBARb@seemyemail.com Some
of these ideas have been disccussed on the
···
Yeah it went over hear like a lead balloon here too -
somewhat of a surprise the reception, i admit 
Wonder what those e4x guys are thinking? I’m not
convinced in either direction.
I’m going try to make the conference, hope to see you
there.
Paul
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Erm. Yes. And Ruby does have a single core type: an
object. Sure,
there’s some language syntax to help around other
common types
defined in the C portion of the Ruby library
(numerics, strings,
arrays, hashes), but I think you’re buying into the
marketing hype
about XML. Ruby already provides data about data.
If you create
your object hierarchy for your programs correctly.XML is best suited as a transmission data type
...
(except its
verbosity, but that’s neither here nor there). It
allows for
meaningful data serialization across languages. It
is not well
suited as a “native” data type – because it’s
unnecessarily
verbose and doesn’t really provide meaningful
information to the
program. If I have:I am most likely to represent that as an object in
my program:class Address
attr_accessor :first
attr_accessor :last
endI think you’re mixing up what is properly a
separation of concerns
here.
No, we’ve just got a difference of opinion. Your
tieing up your data writing an interface for it. There
may be good reasons to do so. Then there may not.
but I think you’re buying into the
marketing hype
about XML.
Sorry, but i gotta tell you i bot into this xml thing
a long time ago. I was skeptical at first but i now
find myself with more and interesting ways to use xml
to PROGRAM. I hardly ever send it over the wire.
Whether or not is would make Ruby unnecessarily slow
or inefficient, i really could not say, probably so,
i’d guess. Make my programs better? Absolutely.
Again, i can do that with rexml now. Just kicking
around an idea.
pv
···
— Austin Ziegler austin@halostatue.ca wrote:
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
You can check out this link:
http://flashexperiments.insh-allah.com/AS-downloads.html
Some of the XML stuff is custom XML written in
Actionscript(AS) by Branden
Hall and Colin Moock because Flash’s builtin XML
parser was slow on large
files. I dont know if anyone else out there knows
this works, but I would be
interested in experimenting with writing an XML
Object in Ruby that worked
in a similiar way to Flash if no one else is working
on it. I would write it
in Ruby of course and prefer someone else to write
it in C.
Did you see erikss code ?
http://ruby-talk.com/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/83457
There’s some sorta perl module in there, me thinks, so
be careful 
pv
···
— Zach Dennis zdennis@mktec.com wrote:
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
paul vudmaska wrote:
— James Britt jamesUNDERBARb@seemyemail.com Some
of these ideas have been disccussed on theYeah it went over hear like a lead balloon here too -
somewhat of a surprise the reception, i admitWonder what those e4x guys are thinking? I’m not
convinced in either direction.
I suspect it’s the context. Many (most?) ECMAscripters are doing web
development and are perhaps mainly focused on the data and markup;
scripts are just another way to manipulate pointy-bracketed data, not
manage complete business processes. So adding markup-centric syntax
sort of makes sense.
I’m going try to make the conference, hope to see you
there.
Excellant.
James
···
Paul
Oh my bad, must have missed that one. I thought he was saying he would have
liked something like that. =)
-Zach
···
-----Original Message-----
From: paul vudmaska [mailto:paul_vudmaska@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 4:18 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: xml in Ruby or no xml it’s just a question
— Zach Dennis zdennis@mktec.com wrote:
You can check out this link:
http://flashexperiments.insh-allah.com/AS-downloads.html
Some of the XML stuff is custom XML written in
Actionscript(AS) by Branden
Hall and Colin Moock because Flash’s builtin XML
parser was slow on large
files. I dont know if anyone else out there knows
this works, but I would be
interested in experimenting with writing an XML
Object in Ruby that worked
in a similiar way to Flash if no one else is working
on it. I would write it
in Ruby of course and prefer someone else to write
it in C.
Did you see erikss code ?
http://ruby-talk.com/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/83457
There’s some sorta perl module in there, me thinks, so
be careful
pv
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
I think he was too and so do i. It’s time i checked
out flash again anyhow.
Thanks,paul
···
— Zach Dennis zdennis@mktec.com wrote:
Oh my bad, must have missed that one. I thought he
was saying he would have
liked something like that. =)-Zach
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search