RE: DAML+OIL editors

> From: Steve Robertshaw [mailto:steve.robertshaw@emorphia.com]
> Notwithstanding the many comments already made by developers 
> on this list,
> the unfortunate truth is that there is no 'DAML+OIL editor' that will
> currently do everything that we all would like: power, accuracy,
> expressiveness, robustness, reliability, etc.

That's certanly true!  But isn't that true of any computer system, language
or development environment, no matter how far evolved?

(I'll put on my flak jacket at this point as the LISP, ML and Smalltalk
types dig out the big guns for a counterargument :-)

> I recently heard someone who
> knows about such things say that if the project were to be 
> mapped into an
> equivalent phase in the history of procedural programming, 
> then we are at the stage of coding in assembly language.

Hmm... not totally convinced.  It's certainly the case that if you want the
full power of DAML+OIL you are currently constrained to write the XML by
hand (although there are tools such as OilEd that will help with much of
it), in the same way that if you want the full power of any processor you
write in assembly language.  However, there are various tools that are the
equivalents of compilers: they can express a different (possibly smaller)
set of constructs in a friendlier way, but do not necessarily make full use
of the power available to them.

I use the same trick with DAML+OIL as I do with compilers if I want to use
the full power available to me: use the editor/compiler, get it to generate
the code, then hand-tweak where I need the extra power!

		- Peter

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 10:33:05 UTC