[news.eclipse.technology.ldt] Re: Beyond textual represenations...

[Guillaume Pothier <gpothier@xxxxxxx>]

Chris Daly wrote:
> I read the subject line and thought you were going to make a different 
> point:  that you might want to specify a language with a number of 
> different notational forms.  You might want,
>
> - textual notation (like Java, C, etc)
> - diagrammatic notation (like UML)
> - form-based notation (like the forms you see when you edit your 
> plugin.xml)
>
> You might want some kind of blend of the notations used in your tooling. 
> And you might want a common object model behind all of the notations.

Exactly what I want!

> I think this is a fascinating area to work in, *BUT* way beyond what LDT 
> should try to tackle at the beginning.  I'd hope that LDT can start with 
> a focus on textual languages, but at the same time I'll be keeping an 
> eye on the newly proposed GMF (Graphical Modeling Framework) project 
> because that's where the good diagrammatic language tooling is likely to 
> come from.  Maybe there will be a way to unify LDT and GMF at some point 
> in the future....

Well, yes, that's a far reaching goal... But although a big refactoring 
of JDT/CDT would already be a great achievement, I hope LDT will go 
beyond that!

Regards,
Guillaume