in reply to Re^25: Is an aXML compiler possible?
in thread Is an aXML compiler possible?

Yah rly.

aXML (the grammar definition) + a set of definition plugins (the syntax) = a language.

It's not logical to compare aXML and TT2, any more than it is to compare Perl and TT2, however for the purposes of illustration a comparison of them does help a bit in explaining the rules of aXML in a way that is accessible to users of TT2.

aXML is not a replacement to TT2, infact, you could if you so desired, replace the standard set of aXML plugins with ones which output TT2 template code. Then aXML could generate TT2 templates for you, or catalyst apps, or mojolicious programs... whatever really.

aXML is more concerned with controlling server behaviour in a declaritive manner than browser behaviour, but having said that it's perfectly capable of doing both, and unless there is a really good reason for using TT2 then there is no need as aXML is more than adequetly capable of replicating the html/xml output templating functions of TT2.

What your looking at is the emergence of a new paradigm, still in its infancy yes, but a clearly different way of doing things which has various strong advantages over older methods (at the expense of processor time).

If you actually do want to understand what it is, instead of just wanting to be difficult, then I suggest that when PerlNights opens in the near future, you click on the "Castle Blueprints" section and download the full source code, which with any luck will be sufficient for most people to understand just what it is about aXML that drives me to continue pursuing it at the expense of my whole career.

Programmers, especially perl programmers earn upwards of £30,000 p/a, which conservatively speaking means I have currently invested around £150,000 of my time into the project so far. And I'm giving it away for free to a bunch of people who don't like me and call me a delusional arrogant troll.

I must be flipping mental...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^27: Is an aXML compiler possible?
by Anonymous Monk on Nov 01, 2011 at 02:23 UTC

    which conservatively speaking means I have currently invested around £150,000 of my time into the project so far.

    You seriously overvalue your worth

[reply]

      Not really, even a junior/trainee perl programmer earns that much, and I'm far from one of those. Sure there were a couple of tricks I only learnt recently, like /e and $_->(), but those are masters tricks, and no one starts off as a master. If I knew 5 years ago what I know now, that salary expectation could easily be increased by 50% or more.

      Of course then I would never of even started writing aXML because I wouldn't see any need for it, being a master and all. Funny how things work out sometimes, but of course, your not ready to hear the truth of those words yet. First I must launch PerlNights and finish the vindication of my ideas that I told you was going to take place. Then when aXML has been widely recognised as the easiest, quickest and most flexible way to build dynamic web sites, designed by a webdesigner FOR webdesigners, instead of designed by a master programmer for master programmers, your going to be laughing on the other side of your ugly face.... whilst I'm laughing all the way to the bank :)

[reply]

        like /e and $_->(), but those are masters tricks

        How the fuck are those masters' tricks?! They're just Perl ffs!

[reply]

        Lalalalala I cant hear you lalalalal , Logicus

[reply]
Re^27: Is an aXML compiler possible?
by Anonymous Monk on Nov 01, 2011 at 02:22 UTC
    Blah blah blah, aXML is awesome, blah blah blah, Logicus
[reply]
      Yack, yack, yack, unfounded insults, snidey childish derogatory remarks, yack, yack, yack, __YOU__
[reply]

        Yack, yack, yack, unfounded insults, snidey childish derogatory remarks, yack, yack, yack, __YOU__

        No, you

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom