RE: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl

["Christopher Hearns" <chearns@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Is this really the best forum to debate this? I mean, if you don't want to use xslt 2.0, don't. Why on earth do you want to convince the rest of us not to? I'm sure if you have concerns with xslt 2.0, the best people to take it up with would be the people who are designing it.

christopher hearns, Esq.
let me touch your perfect body with my mind
http://www.countplusplus.ca 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of David Tolpin
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:10 AM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl


>
> The most obvious diff is that XSLT has tags but Python/Perl hasn't. I
> suspect if you tried to write a SCCM system in XSLT, I wouldn't rate yr
> chances for understandability, or even of surviving very long as a sane
> person.
>

I asked you the wrong thing. Now, why is having tags advantageous?

What are the tasks for which XSLT 2.0 provides better layer separation,
more clear syntax, faster completion, better code maintainence?

For XSLT 1.0 the theory (at least) is that it is simple enough
to be efficient in implementing algorithms it is used to specify.
It has very few things it should not; and as soon as the scope
is narrowed, it is the best tool. 

XSLT 2.0 is awk with pointy brackets. What's the advantage of
having pointy brackets in awk?

David Tolpin
http://davidashen.net/

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


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