[exprla-devel] Re: [XPL] Is the project alive?

[reid_spencer <ras...@re...>]

--- In xpl-dev@y..., Jonathan Burns <saski@w...> wrote:
Alexander Gutman wrote:

>  Hello, friends.
>
> I have just subscribed to the group and read all
> the messages posted here since the creation of the group.
> As a result, the question arises: Is the project alive?
>
> I do not see any lists of tags except some very short raw examples.
> What is the current state of the project?
> The group exists for three months already,
> but the project does not seem to be far from just an idea.
>
> Hope I have missed something important. :-)
>
> Thanks.
>

Hi Alexander, and thanks taking the trouble to read through
the archive. No, you haven't missed anything so far.

I'm not speaking for the mailing-list here, just myself.
But I've been involved since fairly early, and I certainly
hope we can keep up the pace.

One thing to keep in mind, is that interest groups start from
diverse points. As far as I can tell, the majority of open-
source projects begin as splinters of existing efforts, with
pretty clear mandates - often specifications which were
formaulated within the earlier effort.

The XPL project seems to have started independently and small,
with a handful of active participants. So far, we're really
still at the stage of getting to know each other and our skills.
Quite a few ideas have been thrown around, but it may be months
yet before we have a prototype which we can throw away, before
buckling down to write a solid specification.

It looks as if there are just four at present who are really
keen. I for one, am going to have to take XPL at the pace
I can, and it's pointless to work from expectations, e.g. that
three months is too slow.

Let me lay out a few points, on which the group would probably
agree:

1.  To date, XML has been applied to everything except programs.
More accurately, XML has been primarily applied to interfaces
or formats,, which is where it's immediately needed. Programming
is tacked on as callbacks from document parsing - mainly in
Java and Javascript. From the point of view of the existing
developments, it would be a mistake to hardwire XML-based
implementations together with XML interfaces.

2. There are good reasons to explore the resemblance between
programming languages and XML. One is that procedural code
has a hierarchic structure. Another is that both XML documents
and programming languages are defined by grammars.

3. We want to develop XPL as a procedural language, because that's
what we have in common. Me, I see the real benefits coming from
functional language developments - but I think it would be quite
counterproductive to insist on this at the outset.

4. We know that the modularity principle for XPL is going to
derive from namespaces or from composition of grammars, or both.
Just which option will turn out most fruitful, is something
we'll find out as we move along.

5. This is a real opportunity for lateral thinking. IMHO, if we
follow strictly in the footsteps of say Tcl or Javascript, we'll
never make a novel contribution. But at the same time, we need
to get some leverage from these demonstrated technologies. Also
IMHO, this is an opportunity to stand back from some of the
conventional wisdom of programming; and to re-open the deep
issues of why programs are supposed to be programs, and data
data.

6. It's up to us active members to show what the value of an
XPL effort is. We might do that by creating a working prototype;
or by setting out the theoretical issues clearly and accurately.

7. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

In the end, all I can say is: stay tuned. Or maybe, mail in
your thoughts about what an XPL should be.

See ya

Jonathan

Quality accumulates, rubbish just piles up.
--- End forwarded message ---