Re: XML and Ada was RE: A standard package for config files is needed

["Gerhard Häring" <gerhard@bigfoot.de>]

Robert C. Leif wrote in comp.lang.ada:
> From: Bob Leif
> To: Pascal Obry et al.

Not sure what this means and why you're posting to usenet if this was
meant as a personal email!?

> Ada and XML both have: range checking, enumerated types, begins and
> ends, bounded strings, as well as nesting of types or classes. XML has a
> rather verbose import statement that is equivalent to a with and a
> renames. The assignment of attributes in XML is similar to the formal
> actual notation of Ada. The extendable style language XSL, even has end
> if structures. 

Not considering DSSL and XSLT, which look like a LISP processor in
XML/SGML, XML is _not_ a programming language. It's only a (rather
verbose) way to represent structured data. The main advantage of XML
is that it's standardized, so you can use existing parsers instead of
inventing your own writer and reader for your data formats.

It also has its share of problems. For example parsing it is
relatively inefficient, it takes up a lot of space (bad for embedded
devices, but there are hacks that store XML in a binary format), and
it has IMO relatively poor query capabilities. At least compared to an
RDBMS.

> Ada syntax is certainly preferable and much more succinct; however,
> XML and its schema based family of languages can comfortably coexist
> with Ada. 

Sure. They're different beasts.

Gerhard
-- 
mail:   gerhard <at> bigfoot <dot> de       registered Linux user #64239
web:    http://www.cs.fhm.edu/~ifw00065/    OpenPGP public key id AD24C930
public key fingerprint: 3FCC 8700 3012 0A9E B0C9  3667 814B 9CAA AD24 C930
reduce(lambda x,y:x+y,map(lambda x:chr(ord(x)^42),tuple('zS^BED\nX_FOY\x0b')))