Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: Google + SOAP

From: chris:langreiter at: 20-Apr-2002 17:49

> You're not comparing SOAP/XML to REBOL though, are you? That wouldn't > seem to be a fruitful exercise. One is a protocol and > meta-markup-language, and the other is a programming language. They're > both good at what they do.
XML and the XML-related standards are basically a set of representational constraints, as is every language. REBOL, when used purely as data representation language (i.e. without any of its non-declarative/procedural/functional capabilities), is indeed very similar in capabilities to XML. What lacks, for example, is Unicode, but otherwise you can most easily translate any piece of XML into a REBOL representation. But I can do that as well with Java! , you'll say, and right you are, after all, that's the point of XML. However - and that is the critical point, IMO, if you look at the REBOL representation and the Java object serialization side-by-side, you'll see that while the resulting serialization is practically incomprehensible to humans without tool support, the REBOL one is actually simpler than the XML form we started with. <person> <name>Chris</name> <age>22</age> </person> person [name "Chris" age 22] BTW, at you can find a simple wrapper around some functions the Google API provides, along with useful features like result caching. If you're interested in SOAP, you might also be interested in XML-RPC, which is the simpler predecessor of SOAP (and avoids practically all of the problems SOAP people have to cope with due to the higher level of complexity). Carl, one question, however, remains: What is the "official RT way" to write high-performance, concurrent servers in REBOL? (And no, Rugby is not an option, because it blocks when executing long-running functions). I have found no completely compelling way to do so yet. Best regards, -- Chris --