Re^20: aXML doesn't compile

But as for sharing it openly, all I get for being so kind is abuse...

Untrue. I'm not the only person to have gone out of my way to try to help you build something better.

Certainly you've received more abuse than anyone deserves, and that's not okay, but you also bear some responsibility for returning abuse in kind.

Even so, you've been arguing tooth and nail against the best advice available from some people who really know how parsers and compilers and grammars work—people who've studied and built such things that millions of people use directly and indirectly. This isn't because anyone wants to see you fail, but that you're bumping up against the limits of what is and isn't computable.

I believe (and I believe ikegami agrees) that your system requires anything which produces output to have an intimate knowledge of the compiling environment, plugins and all. If that's correct--even in a limited case--then you're especially vulnerable to attacks from untrusted user input from everything from denials of service to code injection and cross-site scripting. If you want to build a system that's truly robust and suitable for the general purposes which you've mentioned before, you'd do very well to stop and listen and consider our concerns.

Feel free to ignore anyone who tells you not to build aXML. If it's a good tool and it makes you more productive, great! Yet do consider that some of us have a lot of experience doing similar things, and we've run into these problems before, many times.

Improve your skills with Modern Perl: the free book.

Comment on Re^20: aXML doesn't compile

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^21: aXML doesn't compile by Logicus (Initiate) on Nov 03, 2011 at 22:11 UTC
Once again you manage to calm me down :) Thank you. I mean that. I admit I shouldn't of engaged with the various detractors quite so undiplomatically. I'm not making excuses for my behaviour I was wrong, but all I will say is this; I'm pretty sure, however undiagnosed, that I have some autistic spectra and I was raised in what amounts to a single parent family by my mum who was herself a victim of pedophilia, so if I'm weird and screwball and I don't deal well with crowds and stuff I'm sorry but I can't help it. While my peers are out doing drugs I'm hold up in my computer den playing with code. I don't fit in ANYWHERE. Doubtless certain characters are going to use this latest admittance and revelation to further torment me, well whatever. Really whatever, there comes a point when you just give up caring, and I've just about reached that point. I'm not going to let anyone stop me from achieving my goals with aXML. Even if I end up being the only aXML programmer that ever existed. I can see where I want to go with it, the tools that can exist in it's paradigm, and the benefits they will bring. I've tried to describe them but I failed. Perhaps they will only exist only in my mind until I create them or drop dead trying... who knows. As for needing intimate knowledge of the compiler and so on, all I can say is that the whole point of aXML is to abstract away from and isolate the end programmer from such concerns. It's meant to be just about the easiest programming language ever. I never knew it would be this hard to make something this easy, and I don't understand why people don't get it because it's so very very simple. The more I learn about Perl, the more aXML stands in contrast to it. I don't want to spend my life writing unit-tests and stuff like that to stop the delicate structures breaking or hiding bugs. I find that whole way of doing things frustratingly boring, and I just can't work like that. As far as I am concerned, I have moved on from Perl in the same sort of way that Larry moved on from C, and I don't want to go back for the same reasons. Now when Larry showed the world the first Perl, did he not get criticised? That's never going to be as fast as C! Look at all these wonderful tools we have already in C! Why are you reinventing the wheel... just use C! It's the same thing for me but with aXML to Perl instead of Perl to C. Perl already had a complete and highly popular language born from it; PHP. But PHP has lots of problems and I don't like it at all because you end up with spaghetti messes which have no structure and are a pain in rear-end to debug or re-factor. aXML is just as easy as PHP but doesn't suffer from those problems because there is very little way to get it wrong, and when I have an aXML aware editor life will get even easier again. I don't want to work with anything else at all ever and I don't care if it takes me another 4 years or 40 years to get where I want to go because I have nothing better to do.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^21: aXML doesn't compile
by Logicus (Initiate) on Nov 03, 2011 at 22:11 UTC

Once again you manage to calm me down :) Thank you. I mean that.

I admit I shouldn't of engaged with the various detractors quite so undiplomatically. I'm not making excuses for my behaviour I was wrong, but all I will say is this; I'm pretty sure, however undiagnosed, that I have some autistic spectra and I was raised in what amounts to a single parent family by my mum who was herself a victim of pedophilia, so if I'm weird and screwball and I don't deal well with crowds and stuff I'm sorry but I can't help it. While my peers are out doing drugs I'm hold up in my computer den playing with code. I don't fit in ANYWHERE.

Doubtless certain characters are going to use this latest admittance and revelation to further torment me, well whatever. Really whatever, there comes a point when you just give up caring, and I've just about reached that point.

I'm not going to let anyone stop me from achieving my goals with aXML. Even if I end up being the only aXML programmer that ever existed. I can see where I want to go with it, the tools that can exist in it's paradigm, and the benefits they will bring. I've tried to describe them but I failed. Perhaps they will only exist only in my mind until I create them or drop dead trying... who knows.

As for needing intimate knowledge of the compiler and so on, all I can say is that the whole point of aXML is to abstract away from and isolate the end programmer from such concerns. It's meant to be just about the easiest programming language ever. I never knew it would be this hard to make something this easy, and I don't understand why people don't get it because it's so very very simple.

The more I learn about Perl, the more aXML stands in contrast to it. I don't want to spend my life writing unit-tests and stuff like that to stop the delicate structures breaking or hiding bugs. I find that whole way of doing things frustratingly boring, and I just can't work like that.

As far as I am concerned, I have moved on from Perl in the same sort of way that Larry moved on from C, and I don't want to go back for the same reasons. Now when Larry showed the world the first Perl, did he not get criticised? That's never going to be as fast as C! Look at all these wonderful tools we have already in C! Why are you reinventing the wheel... just use C! It's the same thing for me but with aXML to Perl instead of Perl to C.

Perl already had a complete and highly popular language born from it; PHP. But PHP has lots of problems and I don't like it at all because you end up with spaghetti messes which have no structure and are a pain in rear-end to debug or re-factor. aXML is just as easy as PHP but doesn't suffer from those problems because there is very little way to get it wrong, and when I have an aXML aware editor life will get even easier again. I don't want to work with anything else at all ever and I don't care if it takes me another 4 years or 40 years to get where I want to go because I have nothing better to do.

[reply]