[boulder.pm] Hmm, now this is either the most boring list ever,or it's broken :)

[David Nicholas Kayal]

lets do an emacs vs vi thread.

i'm living in san francisco and leaving for boulder tomorrow morning for a
friends wedding.  then thinking of heading out to mesa verde.

i am lead to understand that the weather is on the hot side.

i want to climb to the top of bear peak.  maybe it will be covered with
lady bugs again.  millions and millions of them.

anyway...

i prefer emacs.


On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Rob Nagler wrote:
>
> > svq writes:
> > > Maybe some good perl discussion will ensue after this?
> >
> > I have been thinking about Perl and little languages lately.  There
> > has been a variety of discussions, e.g., rpm-list at redhat.com, about
> > using XML for little languages.  To my mind XML is an inappropriate
> > solution if you don't need heterogeneous data exchange.
>
> Agreed. I don't like XML much at all, actually. I was never much of an *ML
> fan; I've preferred LaTeX for typesetting, whatever for data exchange
> (mostly some convoluted protocol), et cetera.
>
> > If you are
> > using Perl, Data::Dumper/do/eval is the right solution for all little
> > language problems.
>
> Well, apparently people like Scheme.  Hey, I figure it's easy to parse and
> it's easy to write (except for when you need to *do* something, NPI), so
> why not.  Perl, even if it's just simple stuff, is not easy to parse (you
> need something as complex as Perl to do it), so if you're writing in
> non-Perl (but why?), you're screwed (I'm even getting irritated by all
> this stuff (parenthetical expressions, that is (sorry (this is
> starting to look like Scheme :)))).
>
> Has anyone else heard of alternatives to XML and Scheme that are
> tolerable?  Any of these that there is not a CPAN mod for yet (I need to
> contribute something... anything).
>
> > Nothing like a bold statement to get the conversation going, eh?
>
> Eh indeed.
>
> Luke
>
>