XQuery as a general data processing language
WAS: [xquery-talk]XQuery and Web 2.0
lord at emf.net
Fri Apr 25 17:29:31 PDT 2008
Michael Kay wrote:
>> Do you guys augment XQuery with a lot of non-standard
>> functions? I can
>> see why people do (even if you don't) but it's a trend I'd
>> like to try to resist and suggest others resist, for obvious reasons.
> Why? Do you think it's a bad idea that there are lots of class libraries
> available for Java? I think the opposite: the richer the function libraries,
> the more useful the language. Of course, portable libraries available on
> multiple engines are better than vendor-specific libraries - but you've got
> to start somewhere.
Lot's of libraries for XQuery, written /in/ XQuery, is a fine idea - I
agree with you there.
If you want to achieve that aim, I think that adding non-standard
built-in functions is not a good idea. People will tend to then go
ahead and use them, and you'll wind up with lots of non-portable libraries.
A comparison to Java is apt in this way: for the first several years of
Java's existence, Sun was quite protective of the language name and
standard and the definition of "conforming implementation". I think
that is one cornerstone to how they achieved a rich set of libraries.
> Michael Kay
> talk at x-query.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk