Re: [Fwd: Re: CPL and XML]

[Alex Rousskov <rousskov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:

> Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
> > Yes, but building an efficient bytecode requires programmer hints
> > (i.e., language support).
>
> This is why somthing XML-based might be of interest - it maps
> naturally into a tree-based structure, which IMHO makes a cood base
> for an efficiednt bytecode.

True. The question is whether all we want to support has a natural
mapping into a tree-based structure. If yes, XML is OK. If no, XML is
an obstacle. I do not think that all rule modules we need to support
naturally come with a tree-based structure. I disagree that the
problem worth solving is that simple.

Of course, any procedural program can be forced into a tree-based
structure. I do not want to force rule writers to do unnatural things.
Natural expression is the whole point of having a domain-specific
language.

Alex.