Re: Someone bashing XSL

Marcus Carr writes:
> 
> Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> > an excellent thing. perhaps then what is missing is the reasoned
> > argument by the "experienced" engineers about why XSL misses the cut,
> > but xmlscript makes the grade
> 
> Nor have we seen the obverse case made, at least not by way of this thread.
> There's been a lot of mud-slinging and precious little substance - hardly the
> handiwork of "experienced" engineers.

  Unless I'm mistaken, the burden of proof is usually on the person making
the claim. When someone starts talking about performance issues, I expect
to see some statistics or atleast some rationaleto back them up.

  Even something as simple as "our transformation engine is side effect
free, compiles rules into an optimized finite state automaton, 
and is stream based, rather than DOM/memory based in order to cut
down on memory usage...etc" and "we process X documents per second
concurrently on the following machine, where as XT, SAXON, and
LotusXSL processs at this speed..."

  The words robust, scalable, enterprise-class, etc are overhyped and
overused these days.

-Ray








 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list