Python not a Very High-Level Language?

[Boudewijn Rempt]

Stefan Schwarzer <s.schwarzer at ndh.net> wrote:

> Boudewijn Rempt schrieb:
>> Yes, I read that too, a while ago, and it got me thinking about what
>> a language like he proposes would look like. He made two striking
>> suggestions - being able to draw part of the logic, in the sidebar of the
>> code, as it were, and having a sort of underlying representation of the
>> code (he said xml, but that's what everyone is saying these days),

> Because "everyone" says it, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is
> bad ;-) .

Indeed not! It's good - but whenever you hear someone extolling XML
nowadays, you've got to ask yourself whether he's just echoing the hype,
or does he know what he's talking about. I mean, XML is a great idea,
but when it's just an intermediary, you've still got to parse the original
source somewhere. And the XML will be parsed into some intermediary
format once again, before the user interface acts on the data.

[...]

> This separation of code and maintanance tool is in part already
> common: think of folding editors. An advantage of these is that you
> can still view the code with a "normal" text editor and this
> advantage should remain in future ideas. XML may be a good starting
> point.

I've tried a lot of folding editors over the years, and I've never
found one that was as pleasant to use as, say, Word's outline editor.
Perhaps that's just because I was expecting that, instead of, for
instance, Origami. What I'd like would be an editor that didn't need
to insert all kind of cruft into the source files, but could work
on a set of preferences and rules to present the source in a nice way.
An intermediary format might be handy for the developer of the editor,
but I'm not sure that it would be necessary. 

<... tuples and multidimensional arrays ...>

I've never really needed either, so don't think I really have a 
relevant opinion here. My game is interfaces, really.

-- 

Boudewijn Rempt  | http://denden.conlang.org