Re: Antwort: comments. (Re: key() Re: Saxon VS XT)

> > Page 27. "Students are taught that it's important to write comments.
> > Professional programmers are often requierd to comment their code"
> 
> "If it was difficult to programm, it should be deificult to understand."
> 

No, it is not the case.  A contemporary programming language such as
XSLT is expected to provide enough means to be easily understood
regardless of complexness of algorithms used. Creation and consumption
are not symmetrical.

Great poetry is very difficult to create, but is a great pleasure to
read. 

Unfortunately, views on what is easy and what is hard to read are different:
in my opinion, for example, immutability of XSLT variables is a big
aid in understanding, while others think that it creates unnecessary
complications.

On the other hand, key() in my opinion, is the true equivalent to pipes.
That is, pipes are on the same level abstract as key() is, and using
pipes instead of key() does not solve the problem of abstraction from
low-level data.

However, if XSLT provide a way to describe complex superpositions
of transformation (of which sequence is just the simplest case),
it would great. Unfortunately, I don't see now how to do it without
sacrificing clarity of the language.

Sincerely,
David Tolpin







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