Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:20:38 -0500, DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)
> Jonathan Robie wrote:
> >I actually think a keyword syntax for XSLT might be more accessible for
> many programmers.
> To echo an earlier point in this thread, I think it's the recursion and
> non-procedural approach that trips up programmers accustomed to the most
> popular general-purpose programming languages, and replacing some of the
> start- and end-tags with curly braces won't change that.
I find this a little depressing. Some how I don't think one can claim
to understand programing if you don't understand recursion. Recursion
is a fundamental concept in Computer Science. I guess the real
statement is that many programmers don't understand the fundamentals
of Computer Science, and that might be even more depressing, but I
guess it isn't news...
The fact that many programmers don't get declarative languages is
perhaps a little easier to take. The concepts of provably correct
systems should make sense, but the leap from there to what it actually
implies is long and abstract.
I'm not trying to dismiss anyone's skills, "programmer" has become a
very broad term for a lot of different skill sets and not everyone
needs to understand recursion. It would be nice if we had a broadly
understood way to succinctly describe the type of programming where an
innate understanding of concepts such as recursion can be assumed,
Computer Scientist seems a tad presumptuous?
<snip>discussion on why XSLT rocks</snip>