Subject: Re: Updated Benchmark Available From: Alexey Gokhberg <alexei@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:46:51 +0200 |
Paul Tchistopolskii wrote: > > ... But I'm also sure that some of those iplementations will not > be 100% conformant to XSLT WD. By the way what is SQL ? ;-) > I think "100% portable SQL queries" have not too much sense in > current world. > I agree about SQL (and most of other popular technologies are not much better). Non-conformant imlementations might flourish, since conformance is not the only selling point. I beleive, however, that conformance itself is not a fatal barrier and that efficient optimization methods can be employed in 100% conforming processors. > ... there is > not a big number of developers who get functional programming. Some > people are saying: "this is issue of education". I doubt ( in fact it > *is* issue of education, but not the issue of 'programming education' ) > I mean making functional language to be a 'first language' has no serious > impact. 7+ years ago I have been involved in some experiments when > one class of students (children) got Pascal as a first language > when the second class got Logo ( I was used to write part of MIT-logo > interpreter ). I came to the conclusion that ability to use concepts of > functional programming has nothing to do with the 'programming educaion'. Hmm ... I think, I'm not convinced. A good teacher will have success teaching any technologies. But good teachers are rare, and in our pragmatic age people are seldom willing to get the "classical" programming education - instead they want to learn popular technologies that can be used "out of the box". But this is a separate topic which probably should be discussed elsewhere ... > I think masses will use not more than 3-4 constructions of XSLT. But that's > not too bad actually. Difficult to say ... So far masses beleive that XSL is a technology implemented by MSXML 2 and XSLT is more advanced technology implemented by MSXML 3; many of them are now considering migration from XSL to XSLT ... > > XSLT will not die ;-) Well ... not really. I consider XSLT to be a first > prototype implementation of some important concepts. Syntax is weird, > many useless hacks are in the core e t.c. e t.c. But that's not a big deal. > ... > ... XSLT contains some brilliant inventions - those inventions will not > die. Concepts/inventions will certainly not die. Let us consider Java - so far, one of the most successfull programming languages. Interesting enough, in 1967 there was invented another programming language - Simula 67 (I am sure, you know about it). The semantics of constructions implemented by these two languages is almost identical !!! Just translate Algol-like syntax of Simula to C++-like syntax of Java, forget that Simula implements co-routines and that Java is Web-oriented - and you will see no difference. Who now knows about Simula 67? Java is known by everyone. > ... Since in the 60-s(?) in the US they invented that it is more profitable > to invest $1 into advertizing of beer rather than invest that $1 into > quality of beer - thats the way marketing goes. Of course this also explains > why there is no good beer in the US. Could be even worse. In Switzerland, for instance, there is neither good local beer nor good beer marketing. > I think those who care about the quality > of beer should just ignore those who are concerned about marketing. > Fortunately, in the world there are companies concerned about both quality and marketing. Thanks to them, it is still possible to get good beer in Switzerland. > > Of course, as I wrote in my prediction, this is not a good thing when > those who care about some XML parts are working 'against' W3C > ( like it was not a good thing that Linux started working against > FreeBSD project ). It will be of course better if, for example, > you and some other people who care about usability of > XML-related things will be on WG, or something. > But who does really "work against W3C"? Many people just try to implement and promote their own ideas and/or provide their customers with the best possible solutions. They cannot wait until W3C will provide all necessary technologies. And who said that all XML-related developments must be blessed by W3C? That anyone who likes to contribute must participate in WG? It should not be a crime to think differently than W3C thinks. > But maybe it was *good* we got FreeBSD / Linux. > Maybe it will be *good* if we get "W3C alternative". > Too early, at my opinion ... Kind regards, Alexey P.S. I am out of the office this week. Please, excuse me for possibly delayed replies. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Updated Benchmark Available, Paul Tchistopolskii | Thread | Re: Updated Benchmark Available, Paul Tchistopolskii |
RE: returning single result from ap, Evan Lenz | Date | Re: returning single result from ap, Sebastian Rahtz |
Month |