A language by any other name
-
I agree, good point there markkuk. XML is a language for defining data structures, not a programming language.
-
Interesting this: meta A prefix meaning one level of description higher. If X is some concept then meta-X is data about, or processes operating on, X. For example, a metasyntax is syntax for specifying syntax, metalanguage is a language used to discuss language, meta-data is data about data, and meta-reasoning is reasoning about reasoning. LOL, come to think about our very discussions could be considered meta. Our discussions on how this forum should work and does work could be considered meta-forum discussions, surely? XML is a meta-language as Chris points out. It is still a language though and along with your square/rectangle example you could say XML is to data as Shape is to Rectangle, a description. Not a subset but a superset. *groans* this is way too early in the morning for me... regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
-
Right. Then again, the intent of XML being a meta-language might does not mean that it actually is a meta-language. Perhaps it turned out to be actual language despite all the efforts? ;) (even thought they were "making" a shape, a rectangle came out) leave alone meta - use the full phase and you get: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=metalanguage Main Entry: meta·lan·guage (snip) : a language used to talk about language
Well I think their intent definitley was for XML to be a meta-language (not in the formal programming language definition though) and they have succeeded in it. Now however naturally we have all this data described by XML sitting around and we need a way of processing it, acting on it. Thus came about XSL which is a programming language. In a bad example XML is to a SQL database and XSL is to ASP or C#. btw what was the original question? (is that a meta-question ? LOL) Oh and ORI below throws us for a loop by correctly stating that meta is also beyond, as in metaphysics or beyond-physics... so could XML be beyond language? ;P regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
-
Well I think their intent definitley was for XML to be a meta-language (not in the formal programming language definition though) and they have succeeded in it. Now however naturally we have all this data described by XML sitting around and we need a way of processing it, acting on it. Thus came about XSL which is a programming language. In a bad example XML is to a SQL database and XSL is to ASP or C#. btw what was the original question? (is that a meta-question ? LOL) Oh and ORI below throws us for a loop by correctly stating that meta is also beyond, as in metaphysics or beyond-physics... so could XML be beyond language? ;P regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
Metalanguage is also a language, hence XML is a language. XML.com also mentiones that it is a "markup language". Still a language. A mere fact that you can describe data in it has no meaning. Only it's definition can tell, not it's name nor purpose. Does it have grammar etc... If it has all the proper structures typical for formal languages then it's a formal language.
-
Well, XML is a Language, but not a programming language. I have a harder one, what you thing about SQL? Is it a programming language? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Memory leaks is the price we pay \0 01234567890123456789012345678901234
Hmmmmm, it *is* possible to "program" in SQL, if you make Stored Procedures, but still, I would not call it a programming language. It's a query language... - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
-
Interesting this: meta A prefix meaning one level of description higher. If X is some concept then meta-X is data about, or processes operating on, X. For example, a metasyntax is syntax for specifying syntax, metalanguage is a language used to discuss language, meta-data is data about data, and meta-reasoning is reasoning about reasoning. LOL, come to think about our very discussions could be considered meta. Our discussions on how this forum should work and does work could be considered meta-forum discussions, surely? XML is a meta-language as Chris points out. It is still a language though and along with your square/rectangle example you could say XML is to data as Shape is to Rectangle, a description. Not a subset but a superset. *groans* this is way too early in the morning for me... regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
...some nice meta-meta-thoughts :rolleyes: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Memory leaks is the price we pay \0 01234567890123456789012345678901234
-
Well, XML is a Language, but not a programming language. I have a harder one, what you thing about SQL? Is it a programming language? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Memory leaks is the price we pay \0 01234567890123456789012345678901234
tSQL (Transactional Structured Query Language i beleive) is a programming language. You can query the SQL database with tSQL as well as perform IF statements, get the time, date, access files etc. all using tSQL. Other variations could be mySQL etc. I may be totally wrong though... regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
-
...some nice meta-meta-thoughts :rolleyes: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Memory leaks is the price we pay \0 01234567890123456789012345678901234
:rolleyes: oi vey, my head, my head! regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
-
Well, XML is a Language, but not a programming language. I have a harder one, what you thing about SQL? Is it a programming language? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Memory leaks is the price we pay \0 01234567890123456789012345678901234
A real programming language should be "Turing complete", i.e. you can do in the language anything a Turing Machine can do. One way to prove Turing Completeness of a language is to write a Turing Machine simulator in it. Standard SQL isn't Turing complete, but most database products contain language extensions needed to make it a true programming language.
-
Hmmmmm, it *is* possible to "program" in SQL, if you make Stored Procedures, but still, I would not call it a programming language. It's a query language... - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
Actually its not only a query language, its a Structured query language! ... I am so wise... :suss: (2b || !2b)
-
meta-data meta-beats meta-file meta-hands-down :) Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
-
Actually its not only a query language, its a Structured query language! ... I am so wise... :suss: (2b || !2b)
LOL - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
-
I was just having a discussion with someone about web development. We had a difference in opinion in regards to the XML "language" because I don't consider XML to be a "language". Anyone else have an opinion? (That's a loaded question for this group)
-
I was just having a discussion with someone about web development. We had a difference in opinion in regards to the XML "language" because I don't consider XML to be a "language". Anyone else have an opinion? (That's a loaded question for this group)
Just as the name implies. It's a Markup Language. NOT a computer programming language. Just as SGML, HTML, and others are a Markup Languages, not a Programming language. They describe their content. Jason Gerard, Master of Kung Foo
-
I was just having a discussion with someone about web development. We had a difference in opinion in regards to the XML "language" because I don't consider XML to be a "language". Anyone else have an opinion? (That's a loaded question for this group)
Well, we now have that xml is a language, but is not a programming language... I would actually say that xml is a programming language. The word programming implies that you are affecting the operation of a computer by arranging the information in it (or is put into it). A "program" then, is an arrangement of information affecting the operation of a computer. I would argue that there really is no distiction between data and instruction; it is convenient to separate the information into these two camps in order to facilitate processing. XML is not just an organizing language like the Markup languages that it is based on. It is a data description language that provides the meta information necessary to process it efficiently. XML does not describe HOW the information is to be processed, however. The point has been noted that XSL is the "language" portion of the XML/XSL combo in that it describes the howness of xml. Let's take a look at that bit. XSL is an XML language that describes the transformation of XML. The results of the transformation can be XML or anything else. Does XSL have "instruction"? or is it a static document like XML? (This is kind of like the distinction between a matrix and a matrix operation.) An XSL transformation is an XML document, so it could be argued that it is static, and no more a "programming language" than XML. Yet it describes "usage" or "instuction" where XML does not. (Or does it?) From that perspective then, we could also say that a compiled c++ executable is not more "active" than an XSL transformation. We grant it active qualities because we, as programmers, think in terms of the "actions" taken upon "data". This disctinction is really just a myth (in the larger joseph campbell sense), a personalization that is useful to our profession. To the OS our "executable" is just data that is context switched in and out of memory, data upon which it performs transformations. XML and XSL then, are programming languages. ;P -John
-
Well, we now have that xml is a language, but is not a programming language... I would actually say that xml is a programming language. The word programming implies that you are affecting the operation of a computer by arranging the information in it (or is put into it). A "program" then, is an arrangement of information affecting the operation of a computer. I would argue that there really is no distiction between data and instruction; it is convenient to separate the information into these two camps in order to facilitate processing. XML is not just an organizing language like the Markup languages that it is based on. It is a data description language that provides the meta information necessary to process it efficiently. XML does not describe HOW the information is to be processed, however. The point has been noted that XSL is the "language" portion of the XML/XSL combo in that it describes the howness of xml. Let's take a look at that bit. XSL is an XML language that describes the transformation of XML. The results of the transformation can be XML or anything else. Does XSL have "instruction"? or is it a static document like XML? (This is kind of like the distinction between a matrix and a matrix operation.) An XSL transformation is an XML document, so it could be argued that it is static, and no more a "programming language" than XML. Yet it describes "usage" or "instuction" where XML does not. (Or does it?) From that perspective then, we could also say that a compiled c++ executable is not more "active" than an XSL transformation. We grant it active qualities because we, as programmers, think in terms of the "actions" taken upon "data". This disctinction is really just a myth (in the larger joseph campbell sense), a personalization that is useful to our profession. To the OS our "executable" is just data that is context switched in and out of memory, data upon which it performs transformations. XML and XSL then, are programming languages. ;P -John
wow...*sits stunned* run that by us again.. :-D Especially love the ..."really just a myth (in the larger joseph campbell sense), a personalization"... bit. Just to add my two cents: XML is simply a text file with tags of special meaning. Somewhere someone sad that < and > denote a tag and anything outside of those two is data. To a computer which does not have an XML parser (which HAS to have a default XSL template to actually work) it is just that, a text file. Even to a computer with this parser the XML document is pretty much just a text file until one applies a set of instructions to it through an XSL template. Along these lines how would one describe an ASP file? It has data and instructions mixed and is useless without some interpreter which understands the instructions, but not the data. Man, this is confusing stuff. I think I will stick to my Joseph Campbell inspired myth of "programmes" and "data". regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
-
Well, we now have that xml is a language, but is not a programming language... I would actually say that xml is a programming language. The word programming implies that you are affecting the operation of a computer by arranging the information in it (or is put into it). A "program" then, is an arrangement of information affecting the operation of a computer. I would argue that there really is no distiction between data and instruction; it is convenient to separate the information into these two camps in order to facilitate processing. XML is not just an organizing language like the Markup languages that it is based on. It is a data description language that provides the meta information necessary to process it efficiently. XML does not describe HOW the information is to be processed, however. The point has been noted that XSL is the "language" portion of the XML/XSL combo in that it describes the howness of xml. Let's take a look at that bit. XSL is an XML language that describes the transformation of XML. The results of the transformation can be XML or anything else. Does XSL have "instruction"? or is it a static document like XML? (This is kind of like the distinction between a matrix and a matrix operation.) An XSL transformation is an XML document, so it could be argued that it is static, and no more a "programming language" than XML. Yet it describes "usage" or "instuction" where XML does not. (Or does it?) From that perspective then, we could also say that a compiled c++ executable is not more "active" than an XSL transformation. We grant it active qualities because we, as programmers, think in terms of the "actions" taken upon "data". This disctinction is really just a myth (in the larger joseph campbell sense), a personalization that is useful to our profession. To the OS our "executable" is just data that is context switched in and out of memory, data upon which it performs transformations. XML and XSL then, are programming languages. ;P -John
So then, you're saying something like... All languages are programming languages. C++ and other normal programming languages are operated on the compiler, which produces output operated on by the CPU. English, French, German, Spanish, Greek, Hebrew, etc. are operated on by our minds. XML is operated on by XSL or some kind of parser, which is operated on by the CPU at some point. Am I confusing things, or straightening them out.... :confused: :) John