From: dblack@...
Date: 2003-10-03T02:11:38+09:00
Subject: Re: xml in Ruby or no xml it's just a question

Hi --

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, paul vudmaska wrote:

> Chad wrote:
>
> > I can't see how hard-wiring XML as a part of Ruby's syntax
> > provides much of a benefit at all.  It would be fashionable
> > (though not really all that fashionable these days), but barring
> > that it's just more baggage to carry around.
>
> It's interesting to me that you would wrap an xml file(rss) in an
> object http://www.chadfowler.com/ruby/rss/ but belittle an offhanded
> attempt to make inherent those attributes that you so painstakingly
> crafted code for and call the former more baggage. Help me
> understand that, Chad!

That's how it works: there's a core language, and then there are
libraries and programs.  You can't put everything in the core
language.

> > more readable?
> >
> >...<list><item>blah</item><item>blah2</item><item>lkjsdf</item></list>
> >
> > vs.
> > ["blah", "blah2", "lkjsdf"]
>
> More readable as in 'more context' not as in more succinct or fewer
> letters or anything else.(ie are those an array of items in a list
> or just a lot of blah?)

It's just a lot of blah -- well, an array of strings, to be a little
more specific.  They may or may not serve as "items" in a "list" at
some point, inside some kind of object and/or markup system.  That's a
separate matter.


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack@superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav