DSLs are great, but that is no excuse to build systems so insanely broken and complex that you need to generate all of the code to implement a protocol because it is too insanely complex to be done properly.
The whole thing stinks way too much of CORBA/SOAP... uriel On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Donald Chai<donald.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > Right, and along those lines, I'll refuse to use Linux because Linus uses > emacs and git while I prefer vim and hg... > > Why not just appreciate that there's a somewhat high-level specification > that's possibly machine verifiable, rather than having to rely on an English > spec? Domain-specific languages are great, though they could have done > better than choose XML for the syntax. > > On Jun 23, 2009, at 1:03 AM, Uriel wrote: > >> Because using XML to generate C code is such a wonderful idea! >> >> I propose we rewrite dwm and wmii in pure xml and then use XSLT to >> generate C code that we can compile. That is what people call progress >> in the software industry! >> >> Erik Naggum[1] would be proud! >> >> uriel >> >> [1] http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/xml/s-exp_vs_XML >> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Ammar James<lone.no...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Just ran into this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XCB >>> >>> Any thougths on it being a suckless alternative to Xlib? >>> >>> >> > > >
