Still, if someone was going to use XML in some capacity to shoot missles
or aid in flying airplanes (which, given the increasing variety of things
XML is used for, could happen soon!), an XML-aware language with static
typing and proof-proving capabilities would be one way to go. If one is
programming document processing and so on where no one's life is at stake
(which is the vast majority of use cases, I admit), Python et al. are
obviously right on. Alas, I cannot find even a DTD-validating parser for
XML in ML, and there is a wonderful variety of XML tools for Python. As
XML is used in more and more applications that may be used in serious
life-and-death situations, I do think this type of issue will come up more
often and will become relevant to XML developers, and maybe people will
take a look at other languages for certain problems.

Proof-carrying code may also have interesting applications in aspects of
the safety of executing mobile code, which while not strictly relevant to
XML processing per se, is definitely of interest to programmers that are
using mobile code to process XML code.
Easy to read article:
http://www.itworld.com/nl/java_sec/09132002/
Very good resource:
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/sip/projects/pcc/

Again, knee-jerk reactions and programming language or standard turf wars
are great for spicy conversation, but I'm more interested in talking about
the issues with an open-mind. And speaking of type systems, I'd be
interested to hear more people's problems and complaints about the WXS
type system (and the interesting developments in ISO DSDL), since WXS
types are obviously being factored more and more into XML specs and some
applications. Ah, but that may be a can of worms that may not be worth it,
eh?

             Happy New Years!
                       --harry




> On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 21:03 -0500, hhalpin@i... wrote:
>> However, if one is programming something that might shoot missles or
>> crash
>> airplanes, I sure wouldn't rely on either Python or C - I'd rely on
>> something with proof-proving capabilities and a strong type system, as
>> well as good modularity.
>
> I thought we were talking about XML processing.  If you're not, then
> never mind.  "something that might shoot missiles or crash airplanes" is
> not really something I find relevant at the moment (nor on this list).
>
>
> --
> Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
> http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
> Use CSS to display XML -
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/edu/x-dw-x-xmlcss-i.html
> Full XML Indexes with Gnosis -
> http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/12/08/py-xml.html
> Be humble, not imperial (in design) -
> http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=10286
> UBL 1.0 - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think28.html
> Use Universal Feed Parser to tame RSS -
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-tipufp.html
> Default and error handling in XSLT lookup tables -
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-tiplook.html
> A survey of XML standards -
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-stand4/
> The State of Python-XML in 2004 -
> http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/10/13/py-xml.html
>
>