Re: The beauty of LATEX
Joel de Guzman <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 10/22/2011 5:07 PM, Daniel James wrote: > On 21 October 2011 21:23, Dave Abrahams <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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. > > 'Nonsense' was Joel's word, I don't think XSL is nonsense. As I said, > "it's great for some XML transformations". On the right occasion it > can even be elegant but on the wrong occasion.... Maybe icky would > have been a more appropriate word. My exact words: "A programming language in XML is nonesense!" And I stand by it. There's just too much noise to be useful. For that matter, no one should be coding in raw XML anyway. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://boost-spirit.com