Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT model not "natural"? [was Re: [ANN] FreeMarker 2.3 as an alternative to XSLT] From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:41:27 -0400 |
That's fine. It suits my purposes for there to be dialogue on this. I have not responded earlier simply because I was too busy moving house.
First of all, you surely understand that my announcement was advocacy material and I made my biases quite clear for the reader.
Well, I can't help but make the casual comment that professors and graduate students, i.e. academics, are much more intellectually oriented than the general population, and I would say, more likely to be open to stretching their minds than the average person.
I would guess that you are a talented teacher and trainer and are good at conveying the core concepts to people. However, the fact that you can make a living teaching XSLT already suggests that it is not that easy!
The programming model embodied by XSLT is perfectly "natural" when it's understood for what it is, and not confused with some other model.
The above argument is not very convincing to me. That something is natural once you understand it is surely true of any conceptually challenging thing....
take the time to come to grips with what's different
If you have to take the time to "come to grips" with something, then it doesn't "come naturally".
I have witnessed more than one "non-programmer" jump out of their chairs with excitement on discovering how "easy" XSLT is....
That somebody is discovering how easy XSLT is means that they had a preconceived idea that XSLT was quite difficult. IOW, I sense a tacit admission of the fact that XSLT has a reputation for being difficult.
This leads to the question of why XSLT has such a reputation. How did it get such a "bum rap"? OTOH, such preconceived ideas, even obnoxious stereotypes, typically have at least some basis in the truth. If XSLT has a reputation for being difficult, I doubt that this is just a calumny invented out of whole cloth.
My belief is that there could well be interest in an easier alternative to XSLT -- an alternative that is at least easier for the subset (however small or large) of people who find XSLT difficult. (You do yourself recognize the existence of this subset of people.)
If I were in an IT department or company that hired various web page design types, and we needed technology for transforming XML, I have to say that I would guffaw at the idea of trying to train typical web design people to use XSLT. I would suspect that there are very mixed experiences out there in this regard. An alternative that could be easier for people to learn might well be attractive to people.
Cheers, Wendell
====================================================================== Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635 Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML ======================================================================
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT model not "natural"?, Jonathan Revusky | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT model not "natural"?, David Carlisle |
[xsl] [xslt] Problem changing a con, email | Date | RE: [xsl] XSLT model not "natural"?, Robert Koberg |
Month |