[Gllug] Website developement

[home at alexhudson.com]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 12:48:11AM +0100, Nix wrote:
> > Perl is higher level because it supports OO concepts.
> 
> Not only does Lisp (specifically Common Lisp) support OO, it does so in
> a typically Lispish (i.e., wildly overblown) manner. Look up `CLOS' in
> Google.

Yes, sorry, I'm aware of that. I didn't mean to imply that lisp didn't
support OO, but that Perl is more readily associated with OO. The fact that
lisp is a playground for academics generally means that most language
constructions are possible.

> > Perl's lack of orthogonality (apart from being a design feature) are
> 
> A *seriously* flawed one, as far as I'm concerned. 

I don't think it's that larry takes orthogonality unseriously, but that he
thinks (IIRC, and I agree) that it's not important for the new user - I
think that consistency is important, but that the shortcuts Perl also allows
are also useful.

> > "A FORTRAN compiled list procesing language", Gelernter, Hansen &
> > Gerberich (1960).
> 
> I've been idly looking for a copy of that. Where'd you find yours?

I don't have one. It's in ACM transactions, I think - check the library.
It's actually a pretty dull read too, if memory serves.

> `Highly influential in the development of' does not mean `equals'

I know, I know. The remark, although somewhat accurate, was more glib than
anything else :)

> (Is C PDP-11 assembler?)

In the same way Perl is shell script, yup :)

> Personally, I prefer to read content, not flashy stuff. Perhaps others
> are looking for a `multimedia experience' when they hit the web; I'm
> looking for information.

I don't just look for pretty pictures, if that's what you mean! I want data
presented to me in the context in which I'm looking, because it's the
filtering and display of data which leads to information.

> Catalogues? Mailing list archives, on-line magazines... pages with
> *text* on them. You know, the stuff the web was designed to help publish?

But the web has since moved on to bigger and better things. Text is okay,
but it isn't great - there's probably too much of it on the web already,
getting in the way of useful stuff. Give me a choice between Nielson and
Zeldman, I go for Zeldman every time :)

(That'll put the cat among the pidgeons...)

> Compare, for instance, the layout and typesetting of Wired with that of
> a normal book. Which is easier to read?

Which is more interesting to read though? Why not cut out 70% of the text,
because it's probably just guff anyway, and just stick with the meat?

> I'm not sure what `complete' machine generation is supposed to be.

	Data -> [Munging] -> Web Pages
	Template ^

> I have almost no presentational elements in the source text

But you admit that you can't completely separate the two. So we have degrees
of gray here :)

Cheers,

Alex.

-- 

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug