RE: Extending SPIN with meta-templates

Sure, it would be wrong to exclude something from consideration just because it was new even if it clearly offered unique and important advantages other approaches didn't. 

The judgment about important and unique advantages aside, in developing standards, when one compares options for addressing requirements, one should not say that the level of adoption, existing tools, market acceptance, etc. are not to be used as part of the decision criteria. 

My point was that these are important criteria and they must be taken into account.

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Coyle [] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 5:32 PM
To: Irene Polikoff;
Subject: Re: Extending SPIN with meta-templates

On 11/11/14 12:33 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> We should strive to use and align, as much as possible, with existing syntaxes, approaches, etc. If they can't support the requirements and can't be easily extended to support the requirements, only then it makes the argument for something completely new. It would be to cavalier not to have this as a criteria.

Align, yes, but pre-limit to, no. If we took that attitude, we'd still be programming in COBOL. My experience is that people gravitate rather quickly to new technologies that they find fit their needs. Otherwise we wouldn't have Java, Ruby, Python, Ruby-on-Rails, iPython, PHP, JS.... 
and on and on.

So before rejecting ShEx *because* it is new, we should look at what we are trying to do, and the best way to do it. "New" is not an a priori reason for rejection.


Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 02:14:43 UTC