Re: [xsl] Re:

Subject: Re: [xsl] Re:
From: "Tamre Bond" <tamre2@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:14:00 -0700
So true,  For those of us who began programming in a language like C this
does seems foreign.  I'm sure it is much easier for folks who started here,
without any preconceived notions.  I'm trying to reverse the
brainwashing....but am dreaming of assignment statements et al.  :-)  Thanks
for your help.


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Carlisle" <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: [xsl] Re:>
> The political spin is that procedural languages are corrupted by the
> necessity to mirror the architecture of the machine, declarative
> programming in general (and functional programming in particular) is
> more in tune with the natural logic of the algorithm being implemented
> (but haven't been popular historically as the extra machine processing
> required has some performance costs) Unfortunately some people have been
> brainwashed into thinking that C (or even Java) is "natural", and so
> no longer recognise the "natural" constructs.
> Don't compare XSL to C, compare it to lisp or ML.
> David
> There may be some :-) missing from this message, but I'm not sure.
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
> delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
> information visit or alternatively call
> Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
>  XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread