Re: [xsl] XLST vs. X#

[martin@xxxxxxxx]

i feel compelled to counter that statement by mr Sax (I wonder if there's
not a mr Dom out there somewhere...)
 - there's a fully featured, object-oriented XML language called o:XML.
it's not very hard to use, and to paraphrase Mike Sax it's power is
unlimited :)

the focus of o:XML is to process and generate XML, which makes it an
orthogonal technology to XSL. generate with o:XML, transform with XSL.

for more info see http://www.o-xml.org

i saw this and related newsitems about X# and found it quite interesting
that Microsoft show intentions to produce a functional language. how will
they get legions of VB and C# programmers to think functional rather than
imperative??

/m


On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Mark Wonsil wrote:

> 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