Re: XSLT vs Perl
I've never liked the pointy brackets aspect of XSLT - far too heavy on the eyes. OTOH, once written, stylesheets stay written with very little need for maintenance - largely to do, I suspect, with the scoping of the application domain of XSLT. To me, the XSLT 2.0 spec adds some well-needed functionality - like regexp - which seemed "obviously needed" in XSLT 1.0 to me once I'd gotten my head around style sheets. Roger. David Tolpin <dvd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent by: cc: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: XSLT vs Perl rrytech.com 03/02/2004 15:09 Please respond to xsl-list > > The most obvious diff is that XSLT has tags but Python/Perl hasn't. I > suspect if you tried to write a SCCM system in XSLT, I wouldn't rate yr > chances for understandability, or even of surviving very long as a sane > person. > I asked you the wrong thing. Now, why is having tags advantageous? What are the tasks for which XSLT 2.0 provides better layer separation, more clear syntax, faster completion, better code maintainence? For XSLT 1.0 the theory (at least) is that it is simple enough to be efficient in implementing algorithms it is used to specify. It has very few things it should not; and as soon as the scope is narrowed, it is the best tool. XSLT 2.0 is awk with pointy brackets. What's the advantage of having pointy brackets in awk? David Tolpin http://davidashen.net/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
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