Re: [xsl] [OT] [xslt 2.0] Difference betwen functions and templates

[Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Justin Johansson writes:
> XSLT, and possibly XQuery, remain to be the language of the high-priest
> programmer in the small.  My last client hired me because I was the only
> one they could find to do it (in Adelaide, South Australia).
>
> Great for contract programmers to make $ while the sun shines but as one
> of those I would still prefer to produce systems and documentation
> that will outlast the memory of my sufferance working for them.

I think it's amazing that we can now seriously compare XSLT to C++, 
Java, and other technologies for programming "in the large", 
considering how modest were its initial ambitions, when XSLT 1.0 was 
published back in 1999 (http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt):

> This specification defines the syntax and semantics of XSLT, which 
> is a language for transforming XML documents into other XML documents.
>
> XSLT is designed for use as part of XSL, which is a stylesheet 
> language for XML. In addition to XSLT, XSL includes an XML 
> vocabulary for specifying formatting. XSL specifies the styling of 
> an XML document by using XSLT to describe how the document is 
> transformed into another XML document that uses the formatting vocabulary.
>
> XSLT is also designed to be used independently of XSL. However, XSLT 
> is not intended as a completely general-purpose XML transformation 
> language. Rather it is designed primarily for the kinds of 
> transformations that are needed when XSLT is used as part of XSL.

How far we have come.

While it's admirable that Justin is concerned that XSLT programs and 
XSLT-based applications be as well-designed, robust and maintainable 
as any heavy-duty technology -- and I agree that the concern is 
justifiable and well-founded -- I also don't fail to see the irony in 
this. If it's being called on to be such, either XSLT must be very 
special, or languages that were specifically designed to fill that 
niche have their own real shortcomings -- or, perhaps, the problems 
of programming in the large are not so amenable to designed solutions 
as we pretend. Or any or all of these.

In the meantime, programming in the small has its place, especially 
on the Internet. And while some XSLT proponents may be happy that it 
makes for a good market for consultants, journeymen and fixers, there 
are also those who feel that a healthy community that can train and 
even educate the next generation of maintainers and designers is 
"greener" than any well-built, well-oiled machine. We are lucky if 
this education can include principles of sound engineering at scale. 
But just because an engine is well designed doesn't mean it can't be 
an instrument of tyranny.

There was never a generation born yet that didn't think it couldn't 
do better by junking it all and starting over anyway. While I have 
nothing against our trying to make our programs into everlasting 
monuments to our own perspicacity, another approach might be to do 
the best we can as an example, so later generations can do better.

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
======================================================================