On Nov 29, 2007 12:01 PM, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, to make a claim for any 'domain-specific' functionality to be added
there are plenty of core perl functions that you or I will use rarely (both in perl 5 and perl 6). my claim is that XML is significantly common place, that any new language that descends from the gods, could have some basic XML processing support in place. It's an opportunity to formalize xml processing idioms in all those external modules, as well as ensuring high performance. > to the core, you would have to be better at making predictions than > those who added modules to Perl 5. _Are_ you better at such > predictions? What evidence have you got for that? the only evidence I have is anecdotal. > When XHTML1 launched did you correctly predict that XHTML2 would turn > into an ignored project that no web-browser vendors are interested in > implementing, and that instead they would be implementing HTML5, a > language based on HTML4 that encourages authors not to bother with XML? no, I didn't predict this ... but this is not really a valid analogy,I am not predicting XML usage .... I am using it all the time, as is most of the folks I know are ..... I am sure there is a silent majority of perl users who interact with XML on a regular basis .... but yes I agree it is impossible for me to prove ;) as already mentioned, I am sure that perl 6 will have XML processing .... my point is if we should have some bits in the core which I see as being an advantage over other languages; also will , the vocal majority here is saying 'no' ..... but doesn't every good idea meet resistance. It would be interesting to hear from someone who does use perl and XML .... if this is not the case on the perl 6 language list, then perhaps perl 6 is not the language for me ;) cheers, Jim Fuller
