Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:

"Jay Carlson" <nop at nop.com> wrote:
    XML is fairly optimized for humans to be able to type it on the fly,
    but it still has lots of fiddly little rules.

He *must* be kidding.  SGML had lots of support for human-writability,
but it was all stripped out to make XML.  The goal for XML is machine
readability, and the MathML specification openly confesses that MathML
is too verbose and error-prone for people to write.

Hi,

Just ignore the complexities of XML and go for the simplicities. Your
support matters.

<this_is_a_simple_tag with_an_attribute="thevalue">
	<this_is_a_tag_without_an_attribute>
		But with text sub item
	</<this_is_a_tag_without_an_attribute>
</this_is_a_simple_tag>

If you use the simple version of XML you'll gain in the long run. Only
computer geeks use complex systems that normal people can't understand.
DTDs or Document Type Defintions which define what tags are permitted are
ok but they add complexity that's beyond normal human comprehension they
suck. Use tags that are dynamic and create software that's flexible in
understanding tags rather than imposing structure on people - this lets
people impose structure on software. The end user rules the wasteland of
software. The user is king not the programmer. Sorry to destroy your
illusions. Refocuse your attention on the user. XML is powerful for it's
dynamic flexiblity. The mistake in XML is the DTD's and other complexities.
Gravitate to the simplicities. Life will be harder but more rewarding for
programmers when you support you human users in the objectives that they
wish to solve. Why are you here? What do you hear from your users? That
they want complex systems? Or that they want simple systems? Smalltalk is
too complex. Simplify it? How? Anyway that you can. Java is winning the
war? Smalltalk is dead? Not a chance. But it is dead if we don't simplify
and create a system that people - I mean real people, and not just you and
I techies - can use. Real people. Simple people. People who buy and use
Windoze systems. They are the real mass computer users out there. If you
want Smalltalk to succeed then you must begin to address their concerns and
reduce the complexity by at least 10 times - maybe even 100 times. Are you
up to it? I doubt that it's possible for computer scientists or computer
geeks to create a system that normal, everyday joe and janes can use
effectively and program effortlessly. What is wrong with smalltalk? Why do
you live with what's wrong. Change it now. My biggest pet peeve is the
image. What a horrible single user notion the image is. It locks us into a
cage with oursleves. Almost like a prision. Yes a prision. You can't escape
it until you tear down the wall just like the east and west germans did a
few years back. Save your self from the machine guns of the image that
Smalltalk systems propagate. What a horrible idea the image is. It prevents
sharing of objects. Objects are just memory creatures not shared object
database creatures. No current or self respecting Smalltalk product would
name itself smallltalk in the light of collaborative technologies and
object databases unless it DOES NOT use an image. All object data MUST be
stored in a "conncurrent object database" that is shared amoung Smalltalk
systems. Each smalltalk system should be a RAM cache of objects from a
shared object database. All objects should exist only in the shared object
data base system. RAM is just a cache of objects from the data base. The
image should no longer exist. The collection hierarchy is a systemic
example of why smalltalk is too complex. There are 10+ collection classes.
This is way too many. How about one that the user can configure to their
needs. How about higher level objects. Lets give users the systems that the
original creator of smalltalk intended. A simple system that even 10 year
olds can program. Smalltalk as it stands is 30+ years of legacy. Some of
this legacy is relevant today. What parts are relevant to you? What parts
are relevant to the average Joe or Jane in the streets? Or in business?
Smalltalk, like Java junk, C++ binary toung, C machine language, C# (shape)
microbrain crap, and other languages directed at "computer geeks" are
missing the point. The point, as I understand it from Alan Kay's and Doug
Englebart's orginal messages, is to create systems that the average person
- as in non-propeller head - human being can use to program to do their
bidding. Smalltalk as it stands is a dead language - just like C++ and Java
junk - because it requires people who use it to learn too much computer
science. Ten years ago I taught a 40+ year computer veterian Smalltalk in
30 daze - days - and he said "wow, Smalltalk let me do 90% engineering
(civil) and only 10% computer science - this is amazing, I love Smalltalk".
The problem is that he had to do 10% computer science instead of 1%. 

Lets eliminate the propeller head requirement from Smalltalk so that
Smalltalk can evolve with millions and millions of common simple folk
users.

More info at http://www.zoku.com.

I will enjoy responding to any who wish to express their support or
dissent. The best way to have me respond to your message is to email me at
mailto:peter at smalltalk.org.

All the best in your life and computing experience,

Peter William Lount, Smalltalk.org Future Generator
peter at smalltalk.org
http://www.smalltalk.org
http://www.zoku.com