Re: [xml-dev] SGML complexity

["Alexander Johannesen" <alexander.johannesen@gmail.com>]

> > Oh yes, by a large degree. XSLT as a language is substantionally
> > smaller, smarter, and more dedicated.

On 9/7/06, juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com
> Other strongly disagree with you. Any statistics at hand?

Huh? people disagree that it is smaller? The XSLT (1.0) standard is
less than 120 pages complete, while PHP and JavaScript both reside in
several hundreds, because, you know, they can do more, and, you know,
XSLT can do less, for very good reasons. Which is the next point ;
more dedicated. People disagree with that? It's about XML. Not about
networks, or hash-codes, security, business logic, data layer access.
it's about taking XML as input, and convert it to XML, HTML or text.
That's it.

Smarter? I think you need to judge smartness on what it does and not
how it looks. So does PHP convert XML smarter? Does JavaScript convert
XML smarter? They both can do it, but not smarter (and smarter is more
efficent, better thought out, more flexible, cleaner, no mixed
development environments, etc)

> You see XSLT more focused to 'machine'. Whereas PHP opens the doors of
> creativity and this appears to be a serious trouble for you.

Really? I'm a serious professional PHP developer of many years, you
know. I know my PHP pretty darn well, but I know when to use what tool
and what they are good for.

> > XSLT is for
> > transformation, not programming, and hence don't need all that
> > complexity.
>
> XSLT can be considered a programming language in all right:

You can do the same with Logo. However, speaking of it as such in
professional circles will have you laughed at, so it doesn't
necessarily mean you should do so. Just because you *can* do
programming with XSLT doesn't mean you *should*. it is *not* a
programming language; it's a transformation language. Please read the
standard. It says so at the top of it.

> > This is silly. Why didn't you search for "XSLT rocks" instead?
> > -- http://www.43things.com/entries/view/417053
> > -- http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/45/xslt-transformations/
>
> What is silly?

Throwing around random quotes from links found on the internet as
evidence of quality. My "rocks" can match your "sucks", so it's
pointless.

> That you erased the links contradicing you? That Michael
> Kay said that "That means there is a steep learning curve and often a lot
> of frustration"?

The steep learning curve is there *because* people treat XSLT as
something it isn't. Which is at the heart of this very thread.

> > Obviously not all agree it sucks. I can also provide you with quotes
> > that says that once you do what you're supposed to do instead of doing
> > what you think you should do, XSLT is *the* XML tools of choice.
>
> Many other strongly disagree!

People disagree that I can provide quotes to a contrary view? huh?

> I already cited a bit.

Well, screw the citations, and listen to people who use it and
understand it, then. The discussion should revolve around judging XSLT
on what it is designed to do, and not whether people understand that
or not. I don't go around critisising basso continuo notation out of
hand, because I simply do not understand it fully, even though I may
have read heaps about it, heard lots of it and even written about it
myself; it may even be hard to understand due to my *own* faults
(intelligence, skills, knowledge, drive, etc), not the thing itself
(which, in the case of basso coninuo notation is brilliant; the worlds
professionals played baroque music for over 200 years thinking they
had it, when in fact they didn't).

> Now i can introduce
> "Transcending the limits of DOM, SAX, and XSLT" article

They critisise XSLT's verboseness by introducing a HaXml that's even
more verbose. I can't take this stuff seriously, sorry.

> Aside from the somewhat annoying verboseness of XSLT, it is limited in its
> expressiveness -- the things you can say are expressed rather clearly (and
> functionally, not procedurally), but you quickly bump up against all the
> things that you simply cannot say in XSLT.
> </blockquote>

XSLT is *not* verbose ; XML is. I wish people would get their head
around that. And the quote "limited in its expressiveness" is complete
bollocks and stinks of an agenda of the author. Sorry, I cannot take
this stuff seriously until they explain *what* expressiveness they
feel is lacking, because from looking at the examples I reckon those
feelings portrayed comes from their lack of understanding XSLT. Here's
a quoted hint from that article ;

>>> XSLT is a special-purpose functional programming language that
allows you to
>>> specify transformations of XML documents into other things

Which is bollocks and a testament to the authors knowledge of the
subject matter.

...

> I would are surprised if you are able to reproduce ASCIIMATH using XSLT
> for instance.

That just proves you either a) don't understand XSLT, or b) you have
chosen the wrong tool for the job. You cannot say XSLT is bad because
it doesn't do X unless it's stated somewhere that XSLT does X good.
XSLT is *not* a programming language, period. That some people abuse
it as such is not a testament to the goodness of XSLT, only to the
stupidity of some people.


Alex
-- 
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
                                                         - Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________