Re: The beauty of LATEX
Dave Abrahams <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
on Fri Oct 21 2011, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote: > That might be extended to say 'A programming language in a markup > language is nonsense'. The problem is that in most languages things > are symbols by default, in a markup language things are text by > default, so using one as a programming language requires nearly > everything to be annotated as 'not text' which becomes verbose. I don't think that's really the problem. We have lots of examples of programming languages in markup languages that work out pretty well, for example, PHP and LaTeX. They're certainly not nonsense. I think XML has special readability problems to begin with that make it unsuitable for human consumption, and especially unsuited to representing code. >> > I would be more interested in embedding an existing language by >> > some means, but that isn't something I'm planning on doing (I think >> > it would really need to have a full AST representation first, >> > although maybe just section by section). >> >> If you want the simplest usable embedded programming language, that would >> be scheme, or a dialect. > > Well technically, it's probably be a Forth style language. ! Please, no. I love Forth for its ingenious simplicity, but... <shiver> -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-docs