On 04/11/2014 10:31 AM, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> I do want to say that the idea of data binding does not have to be a
> gentrified one. There are alternatives to pre-structured object models,
> as I've been exploring for a decade in my Amara XML tools. But as you
> suggest it takes a language flexible enough to go beyond such
> structures. Amara's data binding is based on Python's duck "typing" (I'd
> rather say non-typing) and though it's still a data binding as I'd
> define the term, it bears very little resemblance to its strongly-typed
> namesakes.
>
> http://xml3k.org/Amara/Tutorial#The_XML_bindery
yes. Knowing that the XML community found multiple answers to these
questions gives me solace.
However, one thing that's funny about the DOM and the Web is that
JavaScript is certainly a flexible enough language, but there have been
very few attempts to take advantage of that. The original DOM bindings
shared Java roots, and those structures have grown ever deeper into
browser backbones.
However, I have hope that we'll see more alternatives as JavaScript
developers aim for mini-DOMs that don't carry the full load of the
browser DOM.
We'll see!
Thanks,
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/
