Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork

[Bruce Stephens]

Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:09:32PM -0400, James Blackwell wrote:
>> For the sake of argument, lets assume your point is true. In fact, I'll
>> go you one step better and assume for the purpose of this argument that
>> prefix is *better*. We still loose, because the perception is there.
>
> This is not clear.  I'd guess that a majority of people actually
> fall into two camps: those who have never heard of sexps (and thus
> have no existing prejudice against them), and those who both know of
> and can deal with them (after all it's hardly the case that what Tom
> is doing is from the esoteric fringe, it comes from a long and well
> respected tradition in CS).

If we're just talking about input formats, then it would be absurdly
straightforward to provide an XML-like alternative to sexps.
Actually, it might be amusing to do that, just to show that sexps
would have been a superior syntax.  

So anyone who didn't like sexps could just use this XMLy syntax
(presumably it would turn out to be a smallish XML subset), and
nobody's allowed to dislike XML, however inappropriately it's used.

[...]