Subject: RE: Saxon VS XT From: "Paulo Gaspar" <paulo.gaspar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 03:25:09 +0200 |
You're nasty Paul. Must have something to do with the name. Now (a bit more) seriously: I agree that trying to work with half gigabyte of data using XML and xsl:key() is a serious sign of lack of periferic vision... ...but turning into a XT fanatic is bound to affect your periferic vision too. I mean... a tool is just a tool even when it is a good one. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul Tchistopolskii > Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 09:01 > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Saxon VS XT > > > > From: Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen > > > > Not implementing key() is almost not a limitation. > > > Most of developers will never ever use key() > > > because they'll never ever understand how to use > > > this function. ( Same is about document() with > > > 2 parameters ). > > > > Eventually we will, when we have the concept described well enough -- > > especially since the speed improvement is so big. > > No doubt *you* will. I'm talking about 'most of developers'. > 'most of developers' are not subscribed to this list > ( even they are already using XSLT ). > > > Not using key, is like having to use Perl > > (or any other programming language) without being allowed > > to use hash tables for lookup purposes. > > Poor C, ( and Pascal ) they had no build-in hashtable support. > > > > > Use XT if it fits your purpose, but please do not use argumentation > > like the above since it puts all of us down. > > Nice try. This sounds that you are saying that I'm talking nonsense > because I'm not politically correct ? There is no defense against > such ( political ) argumentation and I'l not try ( I"m tired ). > > I'l of course stop this thread now. > > Those who still think that > > "XT has many limitations because it is not 100% conformant > but conformant engines have no limitations because they are > conformant" ( to me the only possible argumentation is key() > and as I already wrote to Sebastian privately - I need at least > 2 weeks to implement my model of processing his XML > real-life data without key() ). > > Those lost souls who still think that storing massive volumes of > data in the format of huge text files and then use key() hack to > 'improve the speed of processing' - is reasonable usage of > computers - I can not help them ;-) > > Rgds.Paul. > > > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: key(). ( Re: Saxon VS XT ), Paulo Gaspar | Thread | Re: Saxon VS XT, James Robertson |
RE: <xsl:stylesheet xmlns..., Paulo Gaspar | Date | RE: Saxon VS XT, Paulo Gaspar |
Month |