An Object Oriented Programming language used to design styles for Live Journals.
I think this looks like a horrible mistake. XSLT would have been a better solution. The FAQ links to <lj:evan/601685>, a journal entry which it claims is about how ugly XSLT is, but if you actually read it, it's a guy saying "I don't know how to do this! XSLT sucks!" and another guy going "You do it like this.", and then the first guy going, "Oh, i get it; XSLT rules!". There's also some difficulty caused by the fact that the starting XML was shittily designed, which of course is going to make using an XML processing language difficult. By the time <lj:logjam_dev/3276> gets written, things are much improved. So, what i'm saying is, S2 sucks. Shit, even if they didn't like XSLT, plain old Python Language running in a sandbox would do the trick. As a rule, inventing a whole new programming language is very rarely the right solution to a problem (just look at the junk in unix if you want proof). But then the Live Journal admins haven't got a good track record in finding the right solutions to problems.</rant> -- TA
OK, so what about the points raised here: <http://www.livejournal.com/doc/s2/faq.html#faq.newlang>?
Let's look at them one by one, with the counter-hypothesis of doing it all in XSLT.
And after all, isn't "it won't do things exactly the right way, so I'll just start from scratch" the mentality that lead to this wiki...?
At the time it was written, all the other wiki engines around were really bad. There are currently many very well-designed and well-implemented programming languages about. Also, the writing of the wiki was as much for fun as for the end result.
Hmm: <http://lambda.weblogs.com/discuss/msgReader$8805>. Maybe i'm wrong. I don't know. -- TA
|Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:30:05 GMT||Front Page||Recent Changes||Message Of The Day|