XML and C# evolution



  • WTF

     If this is a joke, then I dont get it

     



  • Just checked the date. nevermind



  • That's hilarious 🙂



  • The date doesn't matter really. The joke is that Charles Petzold went off the deep end a while ago and no one seems to notice. This has the effect of everyone still regarding him as an "expert".




  • In fact, CSAML is able to rid itself of every symbol used in old-syntax C#. For example, consider the following old-syntax C# assignment statement:

     

      A = 5 * (B + 27 * C);

    This statement translates without much fuss into the following chunk of CSAML:

      <ExpressionStatement>
      <Assignment LValue="A">
      <Assignment.Expression>
      <MultiplicationExpression>
      <Multiplication.Multiplier>
      <Literal Type="{x:Type Int32}"
      Value="5" />
      </Multiplication.Multiplier>
      <Multiplication.Multiplicand>
      <AdditionExpression Augend="B">
      <AdditionExpression.Addend>
      <Multiplication.Multiplier>
      <Literal Type="{x:Type Int32}"
      Value="27" />
      </Multiplication.Multiplier>
      <MultiplicationExpression Multiplicand="C"/>
      </AdditionExpression.Addend>
      </AdditionExpression>
      </Multiplication.Multiplicand>
      </MultiplicationExpression>
      </Assignment.Expression>
      </Assignment>
      </ExpressionStatement>

    The advantages of this notation are obvious. Because no parentheses are required (or allowed), the programmer has composed the CSAML by carefully considering the problem. Errors are much less likely.

    [My emphasis] 



  • @batasrki said:

    This has the effect of everyone still regarding him as an "expert".

    I have noticed a disturbing tendency for people to overlook the onset of age-related dementia in people who used to be significant. It's a form of the general malaise of judging the person rather than the message.

    I have often thought that there would be a lot less stupidity on the internet if everybody was forced to be anonymous. 



  • lol!

    I especially like how he states that the compiler has less work, because the code would be "pre-parsed" already. I find it intriguing that so people seem to equal XML with "parsed content" when in fact it's a pretty hard to parse language. (Harder than JSON at least)



  • This is a joke, people.  And an old one at that.



  • @jcoehoorn said:

    This is a joke, people.  And an old one at that.

     

    <sarcasm> Oh thank god! I thought I was going to have to go back to working retail! </sarcasm>



  • I just fell for an old April fools too... don't feel too bad. It's just that I wanted to believe it [i]so badly[/i] when I heard that Microsoft Bob was an Easter-egg in Vista. 😞



  • @jcoehoorn said:

    This is a joke, people.  And an old one at that.

     Cf:
    @c0m4 said:

    Just checked the date. nevermind

     ...by which he means April 1st 2006.

    PS: if you end your post with [quot<font size="2">e</font>], you can preview your signature as if it was quoted. You can't submit the post, though.
     



  • The scary thing is I actually believed this was serious until I noticed the date, nothing surprises me anymore.



  • @StrideColossus said:

    The scary thing is I actually believed this was serious until I noticed the date, nothing surprises me anymore.



    Don't be embarrassed.  Back when "This is Spinal Tap" was first
    shown on the telly, one of my mates from school admitted to me the next
    day that he'd believed the whole thing was about a real band. Well, as
    far as the bit about the green globule ... that's what gave him his
    first inkling of doubt that it might not have been entirely serious!

     



  • Here, this should restore your sense of horror.

     Read up on it, the history of replacing C++ with XML-based X++ and then a few years into the development adding a C++ syntax on top of X++ is one of the great WTFs of all time.
     



  • @obediah said:

    Here, this should restore your sense of horror.

     Read up on it, the history of replacing C++ with XML-based X++ and then a few years into the development adding a C++ syntax on top of X++ is one of the great WTFs of all time.
     

    bah. <expr> is a cop-out (so are the "LValue", "Multiplicand", etc attributes in this CSAML)

    the type shouldn't need that {x:Type} stuff either - the type attribute can just be a primitive type, or a URI (for classes defined in the same program, they could be an idref)



  • @StrideColossus said:

    The scary thing is I actually believed this was serious until I noticed the date, nothing surprises me anymore.

    We're two. I found it easy to believe due to the upcoming C# 3.0/Linq. I thought they would really include something else like this after reading the first paragraph.



  • Reminds me of the RFC specification for Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport

    http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3252.txt 

     Nearly as good a TCP/IP over avian transport (with QoS!)
     



  • @PSWorx said:

    lol!

    I especially like how he states that the compiler has less work, because the code would be "pre-parsed" already. I find it intriguing that so people seem to equal XML with "parsed content" when in fact it's a pretty hard to parse language. (Harder than JSON at least)


    Oh jeez. 

    Not this again.  XML is about as hard to parse as Scheme is.  That is, trivial.


  • @poopdeville said:

    @PSWorx said:

    lol!

    I especially like how he states that the compiler has less work, because the code would be "pre-parsed" already. I find it intriguing that so people seem to equal XML with "parsed content" when in fact it's a pretty hard to parse language. (Harder than JSON at least)


    Oh jeez.


    Not this again. XML is about as hard to parse as Scheme is. That is, trivial.
    Yeah, but it's still harder than JSON, which isn't really saying much.


  • Still regarding him as an expert? I read his book on programming Windows 3.1 back in the day, and instantly knew he was a moron. It was a horrible book full of horrible ideas about programming. If anyone ever considered him an expert on anything, they were the foolish ones.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.