<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rounded Corners &#8211; 26</title>
	<atom:link href="http://labnotes.org/2006/09/19/rounded-corners-26/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://labnotes.org/2006/09/19/rounded-corners-26/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 02:41:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Assaf</title>
		<link>http://labnotes.org/2006/09/19/rounded-corners-26/comment-page-1/#comment-12718</link>
		<dc:creator>Assaf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:53:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.labnotes.org/2006/09/19/rounded-corners-26/#comment-12718</guid>
		<description>I think those are good examples because the resulting language suffers from attention to tags over attention to features.

XML makes a stronger point.

But I&#039;ve seen the same problem with any language that can&#039;t move outside it&#039;s domain. ABAP, Access Basic, ActionScript, Apple&#039;s what-were-they-thinking Automator.

Think of it from an economic sense. Developing a good language takes a lot of work. You need feedback, you need libraries, you need optimization, an eco-system, there&#039;s a lot of work that goes into making a language useful.

If a language is only good for one specific problem, it never gets that much attention to evolve into a great language.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think those are good examples because the resulting language suffers from attention to tags over attention to features.</p>
<p>XML makes a stronger point.</p>
<p>But I&#8217;ve seen the same problem with any language that can&#8217;t move outside it&#8217;s domain. ABAP, Access Basic, ActionScript, Apple&#8217;s what-were-they-thinking Automator.</p>
<p>Think of it from an economic sense. Developing a good language takes a lot of work. You need feedback, you need libraries, you need optimization, an eco-system, there&#8217;s a lot of work that goes into making a language useful.</p>
<p>If a language is only good for one specific problem, it never gets that much attention to evolve into a great language.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ryan king</title>
		<link>http://labnotes.org/2006/09/19/rounded-corners-26/comment-page-1/#comment-12713</link>
		<dc:creator>ryan king</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:32:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.labnotes.org/2006/09/19/rounded-corners-26/#comment-12713</guid>
		<description>To be fair, the external DSLs you cite as bad examples share  common trait - XML. Maybe it&#039;s the XML that should be blamed?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To be fair, the external DSLs you cite as bad examples share  common trait &#8211; XML. Maybe it&#8217;s the XML that should be blamed?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

