Re: Did you consider Lisp instead?
> Remember what Albert Einstein said?
> "Make it as simple as possible, but not
You make a good point, and I'll elaborate on this further.
> There is already the laguage, which is
> the simplest from still working ones -
> Lisp. Why don't you want to use Lisp? It
> works perfectly fine for data
> representation, it's very simple by its
> syntax and it's still power programming
You contradict yourself. If we are to keep things as simple
as possible, but no simpler, then why would you suggest
inheriting all of the excess baggage of LISP, which is a also
programming language? It's almost like suggesting a
jackhammer to hang a mirror on the wall.
The attempt of DL is to be incredibly simple, lightweight,
and very focused on stream-based data representation.
Much more so than XML, which DL is an alternative to.
It's a data language, not a data manipulation language.