Subject: Re: <xsl:stylesheet xmlns... From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@xxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 17:06:47 -0700 |
----- Original Message ----- From: Sebastian Rahtz > > it in the real life. "Shedule the disaster". > > This has been invented and described > > by Brooks 30 years ago and I don't think > > anything has changed since then. > > I don't think we read Brooks as a _manual_ for software engineering... And I think it is bad we don't read it as such. Even since then we got some better solutions / ways to 'write software fast' , 'write software cheap' and some other manuals - the Brook's book is still a *manual* if the goal is to "write 'good' software". For example, "Practical programming" (?) by Kernighan alsmost agrees with Brooks in everything Brooks said ;-) > and you don't seem to believe in modelling before coding? What do you mean by modelling? If you mean that before writing the interpreter for some language you should spend some time writing the usecases to see how good will your ( not yet written ) interpreter be with the 'real-life tasks' and you call *this* modelling - I don't understand how can this stage be skipped ;-) But I also for sure understand that this stage can not replace beta-testing, when number of usecases is produced by more than one man drawing some hypotetical code samples on the paper ;-) In fact the most efficient practice should be writing tonns of usecases in parallel with writing the interpreter itself when one part will influence another iteratively. I doubt it happened this way - that's why it takes so long with xslt. > you dont think formal specifications can prove anything? In general - no. I don't think. I never remember at least one formal spec which survived the prototype ( or when it survived that meant that the structure was producing shitty solution ). > > Hmm... I think that what I'm doing is explaning > > that that there are some ways other than > > W3C dogmats. > no disagreement there. although the W3C is simply the sum of its > members. I do not see any sign that XSLT was unduly influenced by W3C > staff members Hm. What is that "XSLT' ? ;-) If you remember, at the beginning there was XSL. The shift from XSL to XSLT and XSL FO was influenced by W3C. Could this be counted as a "sign that XSLT was unduly influenced by W3C staff members" ? ;-) > > And I'm questioning some of > > W3C dogmats ( like 'no-side effect' ). > > unfair. thats not a W3C dogma. probably more from your hero James > Clark! I doubt the 1-1 binding ( insead of more smart model with 1-1 binding as a simple case ) is James Clark's dogma. But actually I don't care *who* is behind the dogma ;-) If what you are saying is true and all the craziness XML has is from James Clark - let's fire him and get the consistent XML specs then ;-) Something tells me that firing James Clark will have very much opposite effect on XML ;-) > > > XSLT is still new > > > > After 5 years of development it is still new? > > where does your figure of 5 years come from? Some time ago I saw it on one of the lists. I forgot the rationale ( but there was some explanation why 5 years ). > if you accept that its > DSSSL, its a lot more; if its XSL, its much less. I'l say we should take the DSSSL , but something tells me this is not 'fair'. > > Hm. I may be too cynical, but I think that because > > James Clark has dropped XT there will be no XSLT 2.0 > > And I doubt there will even be XSLT 1.1 ;-) > > well, I predict the demise of W3C in a couple of years, come to > that. I don't think T B-L's tenuous grasp can hold it together for ever. I constantly predict the same. There is no question for me that W3C have failed already. > > standards. Situation with SQL is that mySQL > > is powering most of the boxes on the planet. > > have you mentioned that to Oracle? Could be oversimpilification and mistake, I'm sorry - I should be more accurate here. My point was that - well - at least some time ago the statistics for mySQL / MSQL was crazy and they are still doing *very* well even they are not SQL at all ;-) > > to make the next step. In your universe the > > 'next step' is to pray for XSLT 2.0 to 'fix' > > some craziness > > XSLT 2.0 is not coming to come from God. It will come from a working > group, which anyone who cares enough can get themselves on. No. *Not* anyone who cares. > > I again feel I'm > > off-topic generator. This is all frustrating. > > have a beer and read Harry Potter. it wil make you feel better Ahh .. instead of this reasonable activity I again tried to explain "the truth as I see it". Because the truth is somehow ugly, I have to use the politically incorrect statement which may hirt Sebastian ( sorry if it did ) and finaly I got the yet another "shut up" from some stranger who don't give a shit to explain *why* should I listen to his 'shut up'. Somehow different picture .... Maybe it is realy time for me to unsubscribe, like many others 'who really care about XSLT' already did? ;-) Remember Oren? Clark? Started with XSLT. Wrote some nice code. Realized something. Unsubscribed from the list. ;-) Rgds.Paul. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: <xsl:stylesheet xmlns..., Sebastian Rahtz | Thread | Re: <xsl:stylesheet xmlns..., Steve Muench |
RE: <xsl:stylesheet xmlns..., Matthew Bentley | Date | Re: <xsl:stylesheet xmlns..., Steve Muench |
Month |