Re: s-expression data language
- From: JesusWaffle@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 30 May 2006 14:30:45 -0700
The main arguments for S-expressions over XML (as far as I know) are:
1) S-expressions are simpler. They don't have the attribute/element
asymmetry. They're just nested lists, with key/value pairs as a special
case.
2) S-expressions are terser. This isn't an important argument, in my
opinion, since either can be compressed, and neither is really meant
for human consumption. (Ouch! Maybe not, since we program in
S-expressions. But raw sexprs would certainly not make a good markup
language. Of course, at the same time, programming in XML would be
miserable, so they're both imperfect notations. That's what I mean when
I say that they're not meant for human consumption.)
3) S-expressions are programs. This doesn't initially appear to be a
superb argument, since you need a Lisp implementation to execute
S-expressions as programs. An S-expression parser is certainly a *far*
cry from a Lisp implementation. However, there is something to be said
for the fact that it's actually humanly possible to program in
S-expressions, which opens up the possibility of manipulation
S-expressions with S-expression programs. Substitute "S-expressions"
for "XML" and you have XSLT, but XSLT basically sucks. Anyway, an
S-expression programming language is a really good thing because it
gives you code-data equivalency, which is, of course, good.
There's my $0.02.
.
- References:
- s-expression data language
- From: Rob Thorpe
- s-expression data language
- Prev by Date: Re: default float point types (GCL vs CMUCL)
- Next by Date: xml and s-expression
- Previous by thread: Re: s-expression data language
- Next by thread: If you get Dr. Dobb's ...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
