C# Application Markup Language (CSAML)

Charles Petzold writing about a new c# markup using XML.  The language may be needed, but he must be joking when he says "In CSSAML, that jumble of symbols and semicolons is abandoned for a structual beauty that can almost induce the programmer to weep with joy."  Looking at it makes me weep, but not for joy.

http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/CSAML.html

C# Application Markup Language (CSAML): An Evolutionary Leap.

"Here’s another example of perhaps the most notorious syntactical absurdity in all of traditional C# — the for loop:

for (i=0, j=0; i < 1000; i++)
     if (IsPrime(i))
          j++;
In CSAML, that jumble of symbols and semicolons is abandoned for a structural beauty that can almost induce the modern programmer to weep with joy:

<ForLoop>
    <ForLoop.Initializer>
        <StatementExpressionList>
            <Assignment LValue="i">
                <Assignment.Expression>
                    <Literal Type="{x:Type Int32}"
                             Value="0" />
                </Assignment.Expression>
            </Assignment>
        </StatementExpressionList>
    </ForLoop.Initializer>
    <ForLoop.Condition>
        <BooleanExpression>
            <LessThanExpression LeftSide ="i">
                <LessThanExpression.RightSide>
                    <Literal Type="{x:Type Int32}"
                             Value="1000" />
                </LessThanExpression.RightSide>
            </LessThanExpression>
        </BooleanExpression>
    </ForLoop.Condition>
    <ForLoop.Iterator> ..."

Did you happen to notice the date of his post?

z33driver wrote:

Did you happen to notice the date of his post?

Well if you look at Xaml, it seems to have the same silly structure as the April Fools C# above. Lots of, what looks like unneeded parent nodes for stuff.

<Rectangle Width="200" Height="40" Stroke="Blue" StrokeThickness="3">
  <Rectangle.Fill>
    <LinearGradientBrush>
      <LinearGradientBrush.GradientStops>
        <GradientStop Offset="0" Color="Red"/>
        <GradientStop Offset="1" Color="Green"/>
      </LinearGradientBrush.GradientStops>
    </LinearGradientBrush>
  </Rectangle.Fill>
</Rectangle>

Oh God! That's awful!

It was used for April foul this year. I even posted about it.

Harlequin wrote:

?Well if you look at Xaml, it seems to have the same silly structure as the April Fools C# above. Lots of, what looks like unneeded parent nodes for stuff.

<Rectangle Width="200" Height="40" Stroke="Blue" StrokeThickness="3">
  <Rectangle.Fill>
    <LinearGradientBrush>
      <LinearGradientBrush.GradientStops>
        <GradientStop Offset="0" Color="Red"/>
        <GradientStop Offset="1" Color="Green"/>
      </LinearGradientBrush.GradientStops>
    </LinearGradientBrush>
  </Rectangle.Fill>
</Rectangle>

<Rectangle <Width 200> <Height 40> <Stroke Blue> <StrokeThickness 3>
   <Fill
      <LinearGradiantBrush
         <GradientStops
            <: <Offset 0> <Color Red>>
            <: <Offset 1> <Color Green>>
         >
      >
   >
>

TommyCarlier wrote:



Harlequin wrote:?Well if you look at Xaml, it seems to have the same silly structure as the April Fools C# above. Lots of, what looks like unneeded parent nodes for stuff. <Rectangle Width="200" Height="40" Stroke="Blue" StrokeThickness="3">   <Rectangle.Fill>     <LinearGradientBrush>       <LinearGradientBrush.GradientStops>         <GradientStop Offset="0" Color="Red"/>         <GradientStop Offset="1" Color="Green"/>       </LinearGradientBrush.GradientStops>     </LinearGradientBrush>   </Rectangle.Fill> </Rectangle>

In a different thread, I asked people if it was too late for a new format to replace XML. In a newer thread, I posted the specification for my alternative, BN (Basic Notation). People have asked me what's so special about BN, and what it offers that XML can't.
This XAML fragment is a perfect example of the simplicity of BN. In BN, the above fragment would look like this:

<Rectangle <Width 200> <Height 40> <Stroke Blue> <StrokeThickness 3>
   <Fill
      <LinearGradiantBrush
         <GradientStops
            <: <Offset 0> <Color Red>>
            <: <Offset 1> <Color Green>>
         >
      >
   >
>

<Rectangle <Width 200> <Height 40> <Stroke Blue> <StrokeThickness 3>
   <Rectangle.Fill
      <LinearGradiantBrush
         <LinearGradiantBrush.GradientStops
            <GradientStop <Offset 0> <Color Red>>
            <GradientStop <Offset 1> <Color Green>>
         >
      >
   >
>

No it wouldn't. If you follow the convention MyXaml uses (class-properties-class), you don't need the Class.Property notation.

And the <: ...> is an anonymous element. Because the GradientStops element can only contain children of type GradientStop, you don't need to specify the name of the element.

Aha

So we are comparing it to

<Rectangle Width="200" Height="40" Stroke="Blue" StrokeThickness="3">
  <Fill>
    <LinearGradientBrush>
      <GradientStops>
        <GradientStop Offset="0" Color="Red"/>
        <GradientStop Offset="1" Color="Green"/>
      </GradientStops>
    </LinearGradientBrush>
  </Fill>
</Rectangle>

?

Yes, I guess we are.

TommyCarlier wrote:

In a different thread, I asked people if it was too late for a new format to replace XML. In a newer thread, I posted the specification for my alternative, BN (Basic Notation). People have asked me what's so special about BN, and what it offers that XML can't.
This XAML fragment is a perfect example of the simplicity of BN. In BN, the above fragment would look like this:

<Rectangle <Width 200> <Height 40> <Stroke Blue> <StrokeThickness 3>
   <Fill
      <LinearGradiantBrush
         <GradientStops
            <: <Offset 0> <Color Red>>
            <: <Offset 1> <Color Green>>
         >
      >
   >
>