> > But someone with programming skills reviewed their work> > right? I predict that as time goes on, you will find> that> > there are issues with what the users created.> > Actually, no. What could have been reviewed? System issues> weren't a consideration, the language took care of> programming pitfalls for them. Application issues? They're>...

> > Something I'm always trying to get into the heads of> > people who are enamored by shiny new tools is that the> > language and the tools don't fundamentally change the> > task. Just like a nail-gun doesn't make me a carpenter,> a> > DSL isn't going to turn a business expert into a> > programmer.> > Very true. However, the carpenter's value...

Something I'm always trying to get into the heads of people who are enamored by shiny new tools is that the language and the tools don't fundamentally change the task. Just like a nail-gun doesn't make me a carpenter, a DSL isn't going to turn a business expert into a programmer.The fundamental challenge of business related programming is...

> > > The one who thinks he can judge everyone else.> > > > Is that some sort of post-modern worldview thing where> a> > programmers work cannot be judged as good or bad> because> > everything is subjective?> > No not at all. My reaction is to the rather utopian view> that so many people are expressing which says that if you> sack enough people...

> > programmers work cannot be judged as good or bad because> everything is subjective? I have to reject that.> > I politely reject the rejection!You think that who writes the code has no impact on the quality and/or that quality of software cannot be judged?

> It depends on company's objectives.> Let's face it, programmers are there to make money at the> end, not writing beautiful code;): > ask any businesman if he/she's willing to trade a striken> contract for a beautiful code.True professionals take pride in their work. But you are hinting at part of the problem. A lot of programmers see their...

> The one who thinks he can judge everyone else.Is that some sort of post-modern worldview thing where a programmers work cannot be judged as good or bad because everything is subjective? I have to reject that. I cut my programming teeth maintaining spaghetti code and one thing I came away from that with was that there was bad code and good...

> It has its problems, but it also has many benefits. The> best thing that happened with XML is that it opened> people's eyes about structured formats.I will give you that it's definitely shown that a consistent hierarchical base for a programming language makes it much easier to parse into a tree. Of course, this was already being done in LISP...

> > I'm not sure I agree but what difference does it make> > anyway? What's your point?> > It seems the point of this discussion is lost. Let me> state it again: it would be much better if there was a> structured format for all data instead of plain raw> bytes.I never argued for anything different.> In this light, a structured format for source...

> But that does not mean that conceptually XML is a subtype> of free text.I'm not sure I agree but what difference does it make anyway? What's your point? > Java source programs are not subtypes of free text.>> C++ source programs are not subtypes of free text.Of course they are. If the source is not text, what is it exactly. In what was is the...

> > XML is a subset of free text.> > No. Free text does not have structure.The structure exists only in interpretation. If I didn't know what XML is, it would be free text.> > I know, BNF grammars do.> > If you know, then how come you say that XML is a subset of> free text? Because it is. Perhaps 'subtype' is more clear. The set of all cXML...

> Manipulate does not always mean 'modify'; it can mean> 'process' or 'copy and modify'.In the context of data 'manipulate' does in fact mean to modify. And if you don't need to change it, then what's the advantage that you are speaking of?

> The classic C++ ambiguity: >> With a structured format, no parsing ambiguity:Not all source is C++. In fact you have proven that text based formats can be unambiguous given that XML is text based.Why do you assume that the source must be C++?

> > I think you misunderstand what 'universal' means. It> > doesn't imply any that at all. Any universal format> will> > have the same limitations as bytes and text. You will> not> > be able to make use of it without assumptions about> it's> > structure. > > No. A universal format means that any program can tell> what it is inside a data model...

> > In IT enterprise IT, for example, change management> > processes often require software must be able to be> > delivered directly from QA to Production without human> > intervention. A lot of tools lack a modular way to> > persist code and/or binaries in a way that they can be> > delivered in such a way. This reliably results in> process> >...