John Bailo wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> >
> > I find this observation very interesting. I have been arguing for a while
> > that in order for a professional document to be produced, a proper
> > typesetting launaguage must be used, at an abstract level or using some raw.
> > Certain information must be embedded by the user rather than be guessed
> > automatically (e.g. structure semantics). For that reason, WYSIWYG
> > paradigms, while supposedly simple, produce some of the worst Web sites and
> > poorest documents. The fact that their adopters choose the wrong tools does
> > not help the quality of the content either.
>
> Don't get me started!
>
> What is HTML -- it's a /language/ that is meant to be written. The
> results of that writing are a visual layout of a page.
>
> To use a WYSIWYG to "create" the HTML is /completely/ ass-backward!
>
> I can create far better looking content, with far greater efficiency,
> just by *knowing* HTML and being able to visualize the result by looking
> at the code -- the way a classical musician can *read* music and hear it
> (or, if he's a rock star, be able to scribble down some notes and hear
> it in his head, before he /listens/ to it).
>
> I even question the whole "visual programming" model. I mean, it's
> nice to be able to lay out a few elements on a form, but other than
> that, it's /code/, /code/, /code/.
The visual programming is a workaround for bad languages we're using
everyday. The only solution is to use lisp, whose perfect syntax allows
you to make your code a language itself.
|
|
