Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT Hello World|
From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 01:20:17 +0000
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:29 AM, David Rudel <fwqhgads@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> seminar. I am definitely making that choice over the superior product >> that demands otherwise and trips me up 99% of the time I try what >> looks like an obvious option. >> > > I dispute the underlying assumption that one can meaningfully talk > about what constitutes an "obvious option." > It's the whole premise of product design. If you got into a car for a test drive you would have certain expectations about where certain controls were and how certain things worked wouldn't you?. There might be some special features that might explanation from the salesman. > > What constitutes an "obvious option" depends on what your background > is. Most of Java or C++ doesn't look obvious at all to someone who has > never worked with OO. > If I got 10 programmers with 10 different backgrounds in a room and asked them what they thought certain language constructs did - lets say return() or an if statement, I am pretty sure there would be a unanimity of expectation. > > Before Java makes much sense, you have to > understand OO. Before XSLT or Xpath is going to make much sense, you > have to understand the structure of XML/DOM and think in terms of > trees, etc. > I don't see why a person who wants to extract 14 December 2014 from <date>14 December 2014</date> needs to know anything about a DOM or think in trees. > > And I would claim that once someone is thinking in terms of trees and > nodes, then the "obvious" things to try work just fine in XSLT/Xpath. > OK. Not a human centric view. How can I illustrate. How much do I have to know about a car and it's design if I just want to drive it to work and back?