| 1 |
Wesley Leggette [wleggette@××××.net] wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 14:34, Joseph Carter wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Well obviously that worked well then, given the non-triviality of any |
| 4 |
> > complete SGML parser. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I've got this feeling, shared by others I think, that XML is a hammer and |
| 7 |
> > everyone's looking for nail-like objects. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I think it doesn't really matter if people are trying to use XML for a |
| 10 |
> lot of different things because they're only doing so because they like |
| 11 |
> XML for whatever reason. I see the point about using an appropriate |
| 12 |
> language for the appropriate task, but I do think I would like it easier |
| 13 |
> if I could learn one language (or really syntax, since the keywords will |
| 14 |
> be different) and use it for a lot of different purposes. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Hrm....learn a language or syntax that you can use for a lot of different |
| 17 |
purposes? I think that would be shell scripting. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives