XQuery as a general data processing language WAS: [xquery-talk]XQuery and Web 2.0

[Thomas Lord]

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.

-t





> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk at x-query.com
> http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://x-query.com/pipermail/talk/attachments/20080425/bc4a206a/attachment.htm