Re: [Boost-docs] The beauty of LATEX

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] The beauty of LATEX
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-21 20:23:39

on Fri Oct 21 2011, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> That might be extended to say 'A programming language in a markup
> language is nonsense'. The problem is that in most languages things
> are symbols by default, in a markup language things are text by
> default, so using one as a programming language requires nearly
> everything to be annotated as 'not text' which becomes verbose.

I don't think that's really the problem.  We have lots of examples of
programming languages in markup languages that work out pretty well, for
example, PHP and LaTeX.  They're certainly not nonsense.

I think XML has special readability problems to begin with that make it
unsuitable for human consumption, and especially unsuited to
representing code.

>> > I would be more interested in embedding an existing language by
>> > some means, but that isn't something I'm planning on doing (I think
>> > it would really need to have a full AST representation first,
>> > although maybe just section by section).
>>
>> If you want the simplest usable embedded programming language, that would
>> be scheme, or a dialect.
>
> Well technically, it's probably be a Forth style language. 

! Please, no.  I love Forth for its ingenious simplicity,
  but... <shiver>

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com