On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 02:36:17PM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > Don't laugh. It's here now. It's called XSLT. :-)
>
> Um, that's not what the article was talking about The proposal is to use
> an XML syntax to program in existing "VHLL" languages, including Perl.
...and we have a working example of what a bad idea that is with XSLT.
XSLT is a good idea in *it's* domain, but very bad for a general purpose
programming language.
> This would supposedly allow programmers to embed drawings as
> documentation as well as solve the age-old tab-setting and brace-style
> dilemas.
XSLT allows multiple XML vocabularies to be intermingled (and
possibly ignored) in the same stylesheet (er, program). And it
renders the other holy wars meaningless, too.
> Sure, program XSLT in XML. I guess that makes about as much sense as XSLT
> is ever going to. My question is, if you think programming Perl in XML is
> such a good idea, why not do it?
Who said programming Perl in XML was a good idea? All of the "benefits"
are of programming in XML are available with XSLT, and they appear to be of
dubious value (modulo domain specific requirements).
> If you think my answer is a straw man
> argument, then what's yours?
What's your question? XML Editors are not the limiting factor
preventing XML-based programming languages; that argument doesn't
stand up in the face of XSLT adoption. The dubious value of those
beneifits (and the re-engineering cost) are the true limiting factors.
Z.
