[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
RE: [xsl] XSLT model not "natural"? [was Re: [ANN] FreeMarker 2.3 as an alternative to XSLT]
Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT model not "natural"? [was Re: [ANN] FreeMarker 2.3 as an alternative to XSLT]|
From: "Michael Kay" <mhk@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:42:12 +0100
> > This leads to the question of why XSLT has such a
> reputation. How did it
> > get such a "bum rap"? OTOH, such preconceived ideas, even obnoxious
> > stereotypes, typically have at least some basis in the
> truth. If XSLT
> > has a reputation for being difficult, I doubt that this is just a
> > calumny invented out of whole cloth.
> Is tha the reputation it has? I thought it had a rather
> diferent reputation, being easily the most successful of the
> W3C specified languages post XML, and one of the more widely
> distributed programming languages ever.
These statements aren't contradictory. If XSLT weren't so successful, it
wouldn't have any reputation at all, it would just be ignored like 99%
of the other programming languages that have been invented. It's got a
reputation for being challenging because people see the learning curve
that's ahead of them and they know they can't just ignore the challenge,
they have to face up to it.
I went up this learning curve myself about 4-5 years ago. I didn't find
it easy. I never do find new concepts easy. I struggled when I first
learnt SQL, when I learnt goto-less programming, when I learnt
object-oriented programming - I even remember struggling the first time
I had to understand subroutines. But each time, I've got to the top of
the hill and never looked back. It's worth the climb.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list