 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> I would use something specific to what I'm configuring, if possible. I
>>> don't want my makefiles, my database schema, my network packet layout,
>>> and my description of my UI to all be written in the same language.
>>
>> Um... why?
>
> Because that means you're using the wrong language for all of them. It's
> inefficient, confusing, and full of senseless markup that's irrelevant
> to the problem at hand.
>
> How would you feel if someone said "We're replacing Haskell syntax with
> XML"?
If you're saying "XML is not a good configuration language" then yeah,
OK, I can go with that.
If you're saying "it's wrong to use the same language for more than one
task" then, uh, what the hell...?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/9/2012 1:47, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> If you're saying "it's wrong to use the same language for more than one
> task" then, uh, what the hell...?
No, I'm saying it's probably a bad idea to use the same language for *every*
task, regardless of how good a fit it is.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/04/2012 01:46 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 1:47, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> If you're saying "it's wrong to use the same language for more than one
>> task" then, uh, what the hell...?
>
> No, I'm saying it's probably a bad idea to use the same language for
> *every* task, regardless of how good a fit it is.
OK. But I'm sure there's quite a lot of configuration files that all
have roughly the same characteristics, and it would be nice to not have
to learn /another/ language every single time I want to configure something.
(Heck, almost every Windows program is configured by the Registry,
right? ;-) LOL...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 11/04/2012 10:46, Invisible nous fit lire :
>>
>> No, I'm saying it's probably a bad idea to use the same language for
>> *every* task, regardless of how good a fit it is.
>
> OK. But I'm sure there's quite a lot of configuration files that all
> have roughly the same characteristics, and it would be nice to not have
> to learn /another/ language every single time I want to configure
> something.
Configuration files is one task.
Reinventing the wheel has only one purpose: the ego. (well, the Ego,
with an uppercase).
When an operating system or a usual library provides a descent solution,
it is good to use it.
When there is no de facto solution, then individual solutions flourish.
But when the operating system evolved with a changing solution, havoc
are around. Windows move from *.ini files to registry in slow motion.
But configuration files is only one task.
The details of my bank's operations is not a configuration (or you are a
pervert with a twisted common sense), neither is a digital comic or a
word-processor document.
Java has a strength, which is also its weakness: usability on different
system. (it's not just portability)
It also means that an operating system specific solution cannot be used
(unless the Virtual Machine made provision for that in its specification)
That's also means that a pure Java program cannot use directly a Direct
X interface, nor the native widgets of the graphical interface. Of
course, you can, but it soon stop being runnable anywhere if you do not
write convoluted libraries to handle the cases when the direct mapping
is not available.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
