Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT Hello World - outreach|
From: Graydon <graydon@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:18:40 -0400
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 06:24:06PM +0100, David Rudel scripsit: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Liam R E Quin <liam@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Ideas welcome. > > Would it make sense to start with considering what prevents people > from using XSLT for projects that yearn for it? I have a very limited > view on what this is, but from what I can tell, there are basically 3 > things: [snip David Rudel's experiences for brevity, I'm by no means disagreeing with them!] What prevents people from using Lisp? XML doesn't work like anything else; XML is graph theory, XSLT is an imperative tree-transformation language specifically for XML, and nothing else works that way. People with solid coding skills from other domains try to use XSLT and wind up in the special hell that is trying to make XSLT do anything imperative. It builds up a reservoir of loathing. Since the analysts and the project-managers don't like it either -- XML data is mostly illegible to them (doesn't go into Excel, you can't query it, etc.) -- this makes advocating for XSLT difficult. Why should we go with rare (and more expensive) skills when we can find a way to do this with SQL? I've never got anybody to believe XSLT was easy; I have got people to believe it was powerful, and I suspect the best way to evangelize for XSLT is along that axis. "Here are things we can do reliably that are much harder any other way". -- Graydon  of course you can query it, but that gets into more rare skills and things the project manager and the analyst have never heard of, which means they're against it because they have to say "I can't do that, you'll have to get someone else."