[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: SGML complexity
> > Oh yes, by a large degree. XSLT as a language is substantionally > > smaller, smarter, and more dedicated. On 9/7/06, juanrgonzaleza@c... > Other strongly disagree with you. Any statistics at hand? Huh? people disagree that it is smaller? The XSLT (1.0) standard is less than 120 pages complete, while PHP and JavaScript both reside in several hundreds, because, you know, they can do more, and, you know, XSLT can do less, for very good reasons. Which is the next point ; more dedicated. People disagree with that? It's about XML. Not about networks, or hash-codes, security, business logic, data layer access. it's about taking XML as input, and convert it to XML, HTML or text. That's it. Smarter? I think you need to judge smartness on what it does and not how it looks. So does PHP convert XML smarter? Does JavaScript convert XML smarter? They both can do it, but not smarter (and smarter is more efficent, better thought out, more flexible, cleaner, no mixed development environments, etc) > You see XSLT more focused to 'machine'. Whereas PHP opens the doors of > creativity and this appears to be a serious trouble for you. Really? I'm a serious professional PHP developer of many years, you know. I know my PHP pretty darn well, but I know when to use what tool and what they are good for. > > XSLT is for > > transformation, not programming, and hence don't need all that > > complexity. > > XSLT can be considered a programming language in all right: You can do the same with Logo. However, speaking of it as such in professional circles will have you laughed at, so it doesn't necessarily mean you should do so. Just because you *can* do programming with XSLT doesn't mean you *should*. it is *not* a programming language; it's a transformation language. Please read the standard. It says so at the top of it. > > This is silly. Why didn't you search for "XSLT rocks" instead? > > -- http://www.43things.com/entries/view/417053 > > -- http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/45/xslt-transformations/ > > What is silly? Throwing around random quotes from links found on the internet as evidence of quality. My "rocks" can match your "[expletive deleted]", so it's pointless. > That you erased the links contradicing you? That Michael > Kay said that "That means there is a steep learning curve and often a lot > of frustration"? The steep learning curve is there *because* people treat XSLT as something it isn't. Which is at the heart of this very thread. > > Obviously not all agree it [expletive deleted]. I can also provide you with quotes > > that says that once you do what you're supposed to do instead of doing > > what you think you should do, XSLT is *the* XML tools of choice. > > Many other strongly disagree! People disagree that I can provide quotes to a contrary view? huh? > I already cited a bit. Well, screw the citations, and listen to people who use it and understand it, then. The discussion should revolve around judging XSLT on what it is designed to do, and not whether people understand that or not. I don't go around critisising basso continuo notation out of hand, because I simply do not understand it fully, even though I may have read heaps about it, heard lots of it and even written about it myself; it may even be hard to understand due to my *own* faults (intelligence, skills, knowledge, drive, etc), not the thing itself (which, in the case of basso coninuo notation is brilliant; the worlds professionals played baroque music for over 200 years thinking they had it, when in fact they didn't). > Now i can introduce > "Transcending the limits of DOM, SAX, and XSLT" article They critisise XSLT's verboseness by introducing a HaXml that's even more verbose. I can't take this stuff seriously, sorry. > Aside from the somewhat annoying verboseness of XSLT, it is limited in its > expressiveness -- the things you can say are expressed rather clearly (and > functionally, not procedurally), but you quickly bump up against all the > things that you simply cannot say in XSLT. > </blockquote> XSLT is *not* verbose ; XML is. I wish people would get their head around that. And the quote "limited in its expressiveness" is complete bollocks and stinks of an agenda of the author. Sorry, I cannot take this stuff seriously until they explain *what* expressiveness they feel is lacking, because from looking at the examples I reckon those feelings portrayed comes from their lack of understanding XSLT. Here's a quoted hint from that article ; >>> XSLT is a special-purpose functional programming language that allows you to >>> specify transformations of XML documents into other things Which is bollocks and a testament to the authors knowledge of the subject matter. ... > I would are surprised if you are able to reproduce ASCIIMATH using XSLT > for instance. That just proves you either a) don't understand XSLT, or b) you have chosen the wrong tool for the job. You cannot say XSLT is bad because it doesn't do X unless it's stated somewhere that XSLT does X good. XSLT is *not* a programming language, period. That some people abuse it as such is not a testament to the goodness of XSLT, only to the stupidity of some people. Alex -- "Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know." - Frank Herbert __ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|