Re: webDNA language.

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2004

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 58830
interpreted = N
texte = Hi there,I am not one of the developers of WebDNA, but I can tell you for sure that they are working hard on fixing the XML syntax code at the moment. In the meantime, we can all continue with the "classic" syntax. I just wonder what "problems" are you talking about, which have caused "unexpected results"?NitaiRoberto A. Berrospe Machin wrote:>Hello every body.>I write just to let the list and the creators of webDNA some things. First,>i think this is a really Cool! scripting language, really easy to use,>understand, and so on...>But the bad thing is that the standart syntax and the xml syntax works>really unespectivelly.. you can use things in the standart syntax that you>cannot use in the xml syntax and viceversa.>As everybody know, i have finded some bugs thats appears when you use XML>syntax. In this case i have used webDNA v5.1. But recently i have downloaded>the v6 (developer edition) and, you know what? the same problems happens.>Also i finded other bugs with the deep of the if's in the xml syntax with>complex boolean expression, date and so on.>>So, i hope the developers of webDNA can solve all these issues... and i>think they need separate the standart syntax and the xml syntax in separated>products. This is not only good to make the price a litle small (from my>point is too expensive), this way the creators (developers of webDNA) can>debug better the source code of the webDNA interpreter and find out the bugs>more easy... I personally have experience (i have created some compilers)>with the creation of parsers and scanners and including the use of some>good generators like COCOR, and i know how complicated and unecesary is mix>two syntax.>>So, this is my (simple) opinion, and maybe is good to the creators to take>this opinnion in consideration :)>>But, anyway... cool language.>>Grettings to all.>>Roberto Antonio Berrospe Machin.>>>------------------------------------------------------------->This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to >Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/> >-- Redakto - Content Management that simply worksContent Management & eBusiness SystemsComputerOil� AGDammstrasse 75400 Baden / SwitzerlandTelefon +41 (0)844 44 55 66info@computeroil.comhttp://computeroil.com-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

Re: webDNA language. ( "Nitai @ ComputerOil" 2004)
webDNA language. ( "Roberto A. Berrospe Machin" 2004)

Hi there,I am not one of the developers of WebDNA, but I can tell you for sure that they are working hard on fixing the XML syntax code at the moment. In the meantime, we can all continue with the "classic" syntax. I just wonder what "problems" are you talking about, which have caused "unexpected results"?NitaiRoberto A. Berrospe Machin wrote:>Hello every body.>I write just to let the list and the creators of webDNA some things. First,>i think this is a really Cool! scripting language, really easy to use,>understand, and so on...>But the bad thing is that the standart syntax and the xml syntax works>really unespectivelly.. you can use things in the standart syntax that you>cannot use in the xml syntax and viceversa.>As everybody know, i have finded some bugs thats appears when you use XML>syntax. In this case i have used webDNA v5.1. But recently i have downloaded>the v6 (developer edition) and, you know what? the same problems happens.>Also i finded other bugs with the deep of the if's in the xml syntax with>complex boolean expression, date and so on.>>So, i hope the developers of webDNA can solve all these issues... and i>think they need separate the standart syntax and the xml syntax in separated>products. This is not only good to make the price a litle small (from my>point is too expensive), this way the creators (developers of webDNA) can>debug better the source code of the webDNA interpreter and find out the bugs>more easy... I personally have experience (i have created some compilers)>with the creation of parsers and scanners and including the use of some>good generators like COCOR, and i know how complicated and unecesary is mix>two syntax.>>So, this is my (simple) opinion, and maybe is good to the creators to take>this opinnion in consideration :)>>But, anyway... cool language.>>Grettings to all.>>Roberto Antonio Berrospe Machin.>>>------------------------------------------------------------->This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to >Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/> >-- Redakto - Content Management that simply worksContent Management & eBusiness SystemsComputerOil� AGDammstrasse 75400 Baden / SwitzerlandTelefon +41 (0)844 44 55 66info@computeroil.comhttp://computeroil.com-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ "Nitai @ ComputerOil"

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Re: webDNA language.

2004

Top Articles:

Related Readings: