Re: Interesting article by Joel Spolsky: The Perils of JavaSchools


Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> On 9 Jan 2006 08:49:10 -0800
> "wooks" <wookiz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > Chris Dams wrote:
> > > Dear wooks,
> > >
> > > "wooks" <wookiz@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > >BTW none of these techniques are available in XSLT. What then?
> > >
> > > XSLT is a very limited language. How would one write and subsequently use
> > > a random number generator in XSLT?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Chris
> >
> > The reason that I keep using XSLT as an example is because it is a
> > functional or at least functional like language that is widely used in
> > what Gerry would call the "real world" and there is a fairly good
> > chance of a Java programmer being exposed to it.
>
> True but the Java programmers I've known who got exposed to XSLT
> ran screaming to the extensions that let you embed Java code in it.
>

Not really an option for those running it on an MS platform from VB+-
..Net, C#/++ though is it. Besides in saying that you merely buttress
Spolsky's concern about Java programmers or people taught in Java
being one trick ponies.

> I think XSLT is the single most hideous and inconvenient programming
> language invented far more than perl it deserves the label "write only".
>

Imperative programmers always say things like that about functional
languages.

XSLT written in accordance with the declarative paradigm is very
succinct and quite elegant. It starts to look hideous and inconvenient
when you try to use it like an imperative language which it is not.
I've had first hand experience rewriting XSLT created by people who
misused the language in this way and hideous and inconvenient and a few
other adjectives would accurately describe the state of the code when
it was handed to me.

.