Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl From: bry@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 19:48:10 CET |
> David Tolpin wrote: > >>declarative, functional? > > > > > > XSLT is not declarative, perl is as >>functional as XSLT. reference the following article http://www.topxml.com/xsl/articles/fp/ I accept Dimitre's contention that xslt is a true functional language. Although i seem to remember that some people on the haskell list or the functional programming list weren't as willing to accept that as ultimate proof. also i had to get out of bed and get the xslt programmer's reference off the shelf: page 13, 4th paragraph: "So how is using xslt to perform transformation on xml better than writing custom applications? Well, the design of xslt is based on a recognition that these programs are all very similar, and it should therefore be possible to describe what they do using a high-level declarative language rather than writing each program from scratch..." If I look here: http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~frans/OldLectures/2 CS24/declarative.html I have to say xslt sure looks declarative to me, and it sure don't look imperative. So what did you think it was? I don't know Perl, looked at it once and thought, i hate this. But I wasn't under the impression that Perl is a functional language. If you can point me to something showing perl is a functional language I would be grateful. Now I haven't read the latest draft of xslt 2.0 but from what I recall of the earlier ones it still struck me as retaining the declarative flavor, and was more clearly a 'real' functional language. > > > >>conspires to destroy xslt? this was tongue in cheek, since I haven't read the latest draft I can't comment on if the things I hated are still there, but I suppose they still are. > > I just think that XSLT 2.0 is very close to Perl, Python and Ruby, > > just not yet as mature. What's the need for one more language in > > this family? > > > I'm thinking that your definition of close to and my definition of close to are very different.... So if I had to build a server, or a media player or something similar, my choice of xslt instead of python would not seem like I had flipped my lid? Because they are close to each other. I realize of course that this cannot be your argument. your argument must be that xslt 2.0 is now a full-fledged text processing language, this would explain references to awk in other emails, and you ask why someone would want to use xslt 2.0 instead of Perl, a language with powerful text manipulation capabilities. well this reminds me of those blog posts I see around saying: xslt is too difficult and whatever I can do in xslt I can do just as easy in language x, the coolest language ever, and as an example contrast an xslt heavy with xsl:for-each and xsl:choose, xsl:attribute, low on xsl:template and attribute={$myvar} with a program written in language x. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl, David Tolpin | Thread | RE: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl, David . Pawson |
RE: RE: [xsl] ordering problem, cknell | Date | Re: [xsl] FO Processor choice, bry |
Month |