Re: [xsl] XLST vs. X#

["Chuck White" <chuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves a little here by saying "XSLT vs. X#". For one thing, the suggestion that X# will be a functional language is pure conjecture. Microsoft has developed a huge object model library and I think it is possible that X# will leverage that library into escapsulated objects that will simply make accessing XML nodes as objects much easier. Or, maybe they've decided they like the notion of XSP (http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/userdocs/xsp/index.html) and are developing something along those lines. Of course, it's possible it may be a functional language after all, but who really knows, other than some people in Redmond?

For another thing, X# is still just vapor ware (vapor#?). It may become a language, and it may not.

Also, I think there are folks on this list who will challenge the notion that XSLT is limited, or even that hard to use. 

Chuck White
Author, Mastering XSLT, Sybex Books
http://www.javertising.com/webtech
http://www.tumeric.net

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Wonsil
Sent: 1/13/2003 10:46:43 AM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [xsl] XLST vs. X#

> There are some stories popping up that Microsoft will introduce a functional
> programming language to process XML and called it X# (X-Sharp).  It may be
> of interest to some in this group.  For some info:
> 
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,808302,00.asp
> 
> The final quote comes from a person with an ironic name:
> 
> "Is there a need for this?" asked Mike Sax, CEO of Sax Software Inc., of
> Eugene, Ore. "The only XML 'language' we have today is XSLT [Extensible
> Stylesheet Language Transformations], which was originally conceived as a
> way to transform XML data into presentation-centric HTML. Although XSLT is
> fairly widely used, its power is limited, and it is fairly hard to use."
> 
> 
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
> 


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