I just had a rummage through some examples of lisp and was instantly revolted by it. Whilst I can see why you might think aXML is related to lisp, but the apparent similarity is superficial.
Also I just looked up this "currying" that you mentioned and I have no idea what that is all about.
As for lambda functions, I do recall a degree holding friend of mine mentioning that term way back like 5 years ago when I was first playing around with the original aXML parser, however I still haven't figured out what she was on about.
Your right about aXML blurring the line between data and code, infact it doesn't just blur that line so much as erase it entirely. In aXML data is code and code is data there is no distinction.
That may ring alarm bells to a classically trained computer scientist, however I would stress that due to the structure of the syntax which is only marginally harder to understand than say HTML5, there is no problem. You can consider aXML as a datacode programming language for controlling servers and browsers.
After a very short and shallow learning curve the systems merits soon become clear.
In reply to Re^5: aXML vs TT2
by Logicus
in thread aXML vs TT2
by Logicus
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |