Re: Updated Benchmark Available

[Alexey Gokhberg <alexei@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Tchistopolskii wrote:

>  
> ... But I'm also sure that some of those iplementations will not
> be 100% conformant to XSLT WD.  By the way  what is SQL ? ;-)
> I think "100% portable SQL queries" have not too much sense in
> current world.
> 

I agree about SQL (and most of other popular technologies are not much
better).

Non-conformant imlementations might flourish, since conformance is not
the only selling point. I beleive, however, that conformance itself is
not a fatal barrier and that efficient optimization methods can be
employed in 100% conforming processors.

> ... there is
> not a big number of developers who get functional programming. Some
> people are saying: "this is issue of education". I doubt ( in fact it
> *is* issue of education, but not the issue of 'programming education' )
> I mean making functional language to be a 'first language' has no serious
> impact. 7+ years ago I have been involved in some experiments when
> one class of students (children) got  Pascal as a first language
> when the second class got Logo ( I was used to write part of MIT-logo
> interpreter ). I came to the conclusion that ability to use concepts of
> functional programming has nothing to do with the 'programming educaion'.

Hmm ... I think, I'm not convinced. A good teacher will have success
teaching any technologies. But good teachers are rare, and in our
pragmatic age people are seldom willing to get the "classical"
programming education - instead they want to learn popular technologies
that can be used "out of the box".

But this is a separate topic which probably should be discussed
elsewhere ...

> I think masses will use not more than  3-4 constructions of XSLT. But that's
> not too bad actually.

Difficult to say ... So far masses beleive that XSL is a technology
implemented by MSXML 2 and XSLT is more advanced technology implemented
by MSXML 3; many of them are now considering migration from XSL to XSLT
...

> 
> XSLT will not die ;-) Well ... not really. I consider XSLT to be a first
> prototype implementation of some important concepts. Syntax is weird,
> many useless hacks are in the core e t.c. e t.c. But that's not a big deal.
> ...
> ... XSLT contains some brilliant inventions - those inventions will not
> die. 

Concepts/inventions will certainly not die. 

Let us consider Java - so far, one of the most successfull programming
languages. Interesting enough, in 1967 there was invented another
programming language - Simula 67 (I am sure, you know about it). The
semantics of constructions implemented by these two languages is almost
identical !!! Just translate Algol-like syntax of Simula to C++-like
syntax of Java, forget that Simula implements co-routines and that Java
is Web-oriented - and you will see no difference.

Who now knows about Simula 67? Java is known by everyone.

> ... Since in the 60-s(?)  in the US they invented that it is more profitable
> to invest  $1 into advertizing of beer rather than invest that $1 into
> quality of beer - thats the way marketing goes. Of course this also explains
> why there is no good beer in the US.

Could be even worse. In Switzerland, for instance, there is neither good
local beer nor good beer marketing.

> I think those who care about the quality
> of beer should just ignore those who are concerned about marketing.
> 

Fortunately, in the world there are companies concerned about both
quality and marketing. Thanks to them, it is still possible to get good
beer in Switzerland.

> 
> Of course, as I wrote in my prediction, this is not a good thing when
> those who care about some XML parts are working 'against' W3C
> ( like it was not a good thing that Linux started working against
> FreeBSD project ). It will be of course better if, for example,
> you and some other people who care about usability of
> XML-related things will be on WG, or something.
> 

But who does really "work against W3C"? Many people just try to
implement and promote their own ideas and/or provide their customers
with the best possible solutions. They cannot wait until W3C will
provide all necessary technologies. And who said that all XML-related
developments must be blessed by W3C? That anyone who likes to contribute
must participate in WG? It should not be a crime to think differently
than W3C thinks.
 
> But  maybe it was *good* we got FreeBSD / Linux.
> Maybe it will be *good* if we get "W3C alternative".
> 

Too early, at my opinion ...


Kind regards,

Alexey

P.S. I am out of the office this week. Please, excuse me for possibly
delayed replies.


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