[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dave Pawson wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 10:29 -0500, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>XSLT is the Lisp of native XML programming. XQuery is ... more like a
>>SQL with report writing capabilities.
>
> Except:
>
> 1. Xquery is not XML AFAIK.
I'm not sure why you say, 'except' - where do we disagree?
The fact that XQuery is not XML is one of the things I was implying
when I said, "XSLT is the Lisp of native XML programming". Lisp, like
XSLT, uses the same representation for data and programs, allowing a
program to be treated as data. XQuery, like SQL, does not. Lisp, like
XSLT, is an extremely useful language with a fanatical following, but
SQL probably has a wider following.
> 2. Heavily recursive programming in XSLT is far less common that it
> seems to be perceived here.
Are you saying that XSLT stylesheets that revolve around
<xsl:apply-templates/> are not common? If so, you must be
writing/reading/using very different stylesheets from the ones I see.
> 3. XSLT was written in XML since the Lisp'ish Scheme used in DSSSL was
> perceived as 'ard.
'Hard' only makes sense with respect to a given audience. I think
most programmers can pick up a copy of "The Little Lisper" and learn
how to write Lisp programs relatively easily - but in the process,
they will have to learn a whole new way of thinking. Is that hard? I
don't think so, but it does seem to keep Lisp from being a mass
market language.
XSLT is a successful language, and a very useful language. For the
kinds of tasks that drove its design, it's easier to use than
XQuery. For the kind of tasks that drove the design of XQuery, I
prefer XQuery.
Could be more than coincicdence.
Jonathan
|
