Re: [xsl] Measuring the complexity of XSLT stylesheets

Subject: Re: [xsl] Measuring the complexity of XSLT stylesheets
From: "M. David Peterson" <m.david.x2x2x@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:53:20 -0600
> been written
in a declaritive foundation

oops... that would be procedural now wouldnt it...

On 4/17/05, M. David Peterson <m.david.x2x2x@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There all right but let me add one more little thing.  XSLT is a
> template language and when written in its more
> functional/template-based nature XSLT is really quite easy and doesnt
> require complexity to get proper results.  The problem as I see it
> (and Colin pointed this out to a nice example of using XPath... people
> tend to force XPath to do TONS of heavy lifting when in reality you
> just have to let the XML fall gracefully until targeted by the best
> matching template and then captured and processed accordingly) is that
> our core focus for so many years has been to have COMPLETE and TOTAL
> control at every moment using procedural coding that we all tend to
> force the issue with XSLT (you will do this and do this now! kind of
> thing) instead of letting the issue happen and then dealing with it
> when it does...  laaaaazzzzyyyy style ;)  When you step back from that
> mentality and simply design your XML and XSLT in such a way that there
> is no need to climb up and down the tree to process the data then XSLT
> is never complex.  It may take a little getting used to the style and
> as such seem a bit complex but after you just "let go and let God" as
> the saying goes then your mind adjusts and it simply makes sense.  It
> seems to me that just about the time you find yourself having to write
> complex code to make something work in XSLT is right about the time
> you need to rethink things and realize you are doing things the hard
> way (the procedural side of your brain if you will) and that there is
> a much simpler approach that will work twice as efficient if you block
> the procedural line of thinking and embrace the template-based
> functional side of your brain
>
> As a side note....  given the fact that God is an obvious functional
> programmer it seems fairly apparent that the first seven days were
> more than likely written in XSLT at first and then stupified by Satan
> to make them seem like it all happened procedurally... thus all the
> clouded mystery and such when in reality things just happenened in
> their natural order and sequence... then again who would want to read
> a book that didn't have fire and smoke and burning things to keep our
> interest...  guess it makes sense... with lightness there must be
> darkness, good? then theres got to be bad... truth?  here come the
> liars...  XSLT?  Hmmm.... its too bad XQuery couldnt have been written
> in a declaritive foundation as it would have made this last paragraph
> more fun...  Damn recursion ;)
>
> On 17 Apr 2005 18:52:07 +0100, Colin Paul Adams
> <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>>> "Lars" == Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >    Lars> | to be honest if you could define XPATH expression
> >    Lars> complexity then | you have most the battle won.
> >
> >    Lars> True, but my problem so far is that I can't. :)
> >
> > Well, the length of the XPATH expression in characters gives an idea,
> > I think.
> > --
> > Colin Paul Adams
> > Preston Lancashire
> >
> >
>
> --
> <M:D/>
>
> :: M. David Peterson ::
> XML & XML Transformations, C#, .NET, and Functional Languages Specialist
>


--
<M:D/>

:: M. David Peterson ::
XML & XML Transformations, C#, .NET, and Functional Languages Specialist

Current Thread