> Integration is surface, the interface to the user. Not the concepts or libs. That's the kind of viewpoint you get after years of using Unix or Windows. > So

> Integration is surface, the interface to the user. Not the concepts or libs. That's the kind of viewpoint you get after years of using Unix or Windows. > Sorry, but not reading that, not after the first article. Ok. That one is not a rant, but whatever, you are arguing against its contents, and I don't see why I should be repeating myself. Sorry it's too long. > And if you don't work with a solid foundation, you will start accumulating bloat of small pieces. Exactly: you need a solid foundation to give you all the flexibility & meta-flexibility that you need. Otherwise meet bloat. > That's wrong. Problems will always exist. Everything is a compromise of tradeoffs < XML is such a basic type, for tree-structures. Hey, look, you keep arguing with the article you have decided not to read, and you are arguing with a strawman. I don't know what you think I am trying to do. > Structures are also such a compromise. It enables you to handle more and press it into a form You know what real flexibility means? It's the ability to decide when you want structure and when you don't. And this is the kind of structural editing I am proposing: you can simply recreate a string-based editor within it, for any of your elements. At the higher-level, it can be reused. No structure where none is required? Sure. I am all for it. But there's much more structure out there that meets the eye. > Then maybe you just don't understand the problems tackled here at all. Or maybe you don't? Because, explain your point better, please.