xslt ?

[surf]

I had tried to work with XLST a few years ago. I got some simple stuff
to work, then I started playing with perl XML parsers and the xml:twig
module in perl. All of this stuff I really liked, so I forgot about
working with xlst which to me didn't seem like the way to go,
especially if it got very complex. I'm not sure why anyone would want
to write a program of any sort in XML anyway ?

However, now I realize I have to know what to say in an interview. A
recruiter did a phone interview with me and asked me about xlst. I told
him I thought it was rather weak compared to what perl modules can do,
but if I had to do it, I've played with it and have a book on it. I
perhaps have to figure out how to answer these kinds of questions, or
ask myself do I really want to have to write XSLT anyway if they did
hire me someplace that expects you to do it that way ?

 

[John Bokma]

However, now I realize I have to know what to say in an interview. A
recruiter did a phone interview with me and asked me about xlst. I told
him I thought it was rather weak compared to what perl modules can do,
but if I had to do it, I've played with it and have a book on it. I
perhaps have to figure out how to answer these kinds of questions, or
ask myself do I really want to have to write XSLT anyway if they did
hire me someplace that expects you to do it that way ?

There is no simple answer, sometimes XSLT is better and sometimes Perl.
Only when you learn both you are able to answer questions like when one is
better compared to the other. I do recommend to learn XSLT.

 

[Matt Garrish]

I had tried to work with XLST a few years ago. I got some simple stuff
to work, then I started playing with perl XML parsers and the xml:twig
module in perl. All of this stuff I really liked, so I forgot about
working with xlst which to me didn't seem like the way to go,
especially if it got very complex. I'm not sure why anyone would want
to write a program of any sort in XML anyway ?

You're so behind the times. Everyone is using RXParse for their XML
these days. Be sure and tell your recruiter.

Matt

 

[Tad McClellan]

I'm not sure why anyone would want
to write a program of any sort in XML anyway ?

One Reason:

XSLT is optimized for machines rather than for humans.



Let's haul this back on-topic:

Contrast that with Perl, which is optimized for humans at the
expense of the machine (throwing cycles and memory at a problem).

 

[surf]

You're so behind the times. Everyone is using RXParse for their XML
these days. Be sure and tell your recruiter.

Matt

Under jobs on boston craigslist I searched for xslt and got 222 hits,
I got none for RXParse. That doesn't mean it isn't great, just that no
one in boston is looking to hire anyone based on that unless it's a
tool that is part of some other application.

 

[surf]

One Reason:

XSLT is optimized for machines rather than for humans.



Let's haul this back on-topic:

Contrast that with Perl, which is optimized for humans at the
expense of the machine (throwing cycles and memory at a problem).

I'm not an xslt expert, but you need to elaborate on that. Obviously
programming in assembly language is not very popular, although it might
be optimized for machines.

Since humans write code for machines, humans need languages as well,
and when problems get very complex, high level languages can provide
many usefull features to help humans. I once replaced a sort done in
assembly language with a sort done in pascal. The pascal sort turned
out to be faster because it was a better sort algorithm, and the
assembly code was hard to figure out what it did anyway.

 

[Tad McClellan]

Under jobs on boston craigslist I searched for xslt and got 222 hits,
I got none for RXParse. That doesn't mean it isn't great, just that no
one in boston is looking to hire anyone based on that unless it's a
tool that is part of some other application.

Matt's post was an (inside) joke. He should have put a smiley in it.

RXParse is an abomination of a hack, written by a troll that
posts here from time to time.

I wouldn't mention it to a recruiter.

 

[Tad McClellan]

I'm not an xslt expert, but you need to elaborate on that.

^^^^
^^^^
No I don't.

Obviously
programming in assembly language is not very popular, although it might
be optimized for machines.

I don't need to elaborate on what I said.

I might need to elaborate on why XSLT is popular though.

Here's my stab at it: platform independence.

 

[David H. Adler]

Under jobs on boston craigslist I searched for xslt and got 222 hits,
I got none for RXParse. That doesn't mean it isn't great, just that no
one in boston is looking to hire anyone based on that unless it's a
tool that is part of some other application.

If you search the archives for this newsgroup, you will see that Matt
was almost certainly applying for the job of "sarcasm".

dha

 

[surf]

^^^^
^^^^
No I don't.




I don't need to elaborate on what I said.

I might need to elaborate on why XSLT is popular though.

Here's my stab at it: platform independence.

I'd like to have a look at a complex xlst example if I could find one.

My suspicion is that people don't want to learn perl just to transform
xml,
although if you allready know perl, it would probably do a better job
and is available on most machines.

 

[Matt Garrish]

Matt's post was an (inside) joke. He should have put a smiley in it.

RXParse is an abomination of a hack, written by a troll that
posts here from time to time.

Well, I didn't want to give away the joke. It sounded like he was
asking for some technical double-talk to bluff his way into jobs, and
without the smiley it might well have induced him to bring it up in
conversation. But since you guys ratted me out... ; )

Matt

 

[surf]

^^^^
^^^^
No I don't.




I don't need to elaborate on what I said.

I might need to elaborate on why XSLT is popular though.

Here's my stab at it: platform independence.


--

There has not been allot of response from perl users here, I'm not
sure if perl programmers have much interest in xml ...

Here's something I found at

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/1/15/1562/95011

"However, this integration comes at a cost: Verbosity. Terrible
verbosity. The signal-to-noise ratio of XSLT transformations is
shameful, easily among the worst of all computer languages in
widespread use. Non-trivial XSLT transformations almost appear
obfuscated."

 

[Matt Garrish]

There has not been allot of response from perl users here, I'm not
sure if perl programmers have much interest in xml ...

I don't know that there's any correlation to be made between the lack
of interest in your post and the use of xml by perl programmers. If
anything, it just shows that you asked an uninteresting and slighty
off-topic question that's getting the attention it merits.

If you have any real questions about xslt or xml and perl, go ahead and
ask. If you just want an explanation of the merits of xslt you're
asking in the wrong forum.

And as a word of advice, you might consider laying off the
over-simplifications in the future. Your remark about why anyone would
use xml shows your level of understanding is quite low, and that will
stop most people from reading anything else you have to say.

Matt

 

[surf]

I don't know that there's any correlation to be made between the lack
of interest in your post and the use of xml by perl programmers. If
anything, it just shows that you asked an uninteresting and slighty
off-topic question that's getting the attention it merits.

If you have any real questions about xslt or xml and perl, go ahead and
ask. If you just want an explanation of the merits of xslt you're
asking in the wrong forum.

And as a word of advice, you might consider laying off the
over-simplifications in the future. Your remark about why anyone would
use xml shows your level of understanding is quite low, and that will
stop most people from reading anything else you have to say.

Tad seem to imply perl is less suited for XML due to being optimized
for humans,
I think that is more of an oversimplication of anything I have said.

 

[Matt Garrish]

Tad seem to imply perl is less suited for XML due to being optimized
for humans,
I think that is more of an oversimplication of anything I have said.

He never said anything of the sort:

<requote Tad's earlier post>
XSLT is optimized for machines rather than for humans.

Let's haul this back on-topic:

Contrast that with Perl, which is optimized for humans at the
expense of the machine (throwing cycles and memory at a problem).
</quote>

He made a valid statement about using XSLT for transforming XML as
opposed to using perl, which is that XSLT is better optimized than
anything you'll be able to do in pure perl. That doesn't mean that perl
is not good for XML, only that you'll get better speed from an XSLT
processor.

There is a price to be paid for using perl, but anyone who uses perl
for anything (not just XML) is aware of that price and can live with
it. If your needs go beyond the sometimes limited boundaries of XSLT,
then perl is a good choice, and I see nothing in Tad's earlier post to
refute that or to say that it's not. Every company I've worked for has
used perl for at least some of their xml needs, so it must be doing
something right.

Matt

 

[Tad McClellan]

Tad seem to imply perl is less suited for XML due to being optimized
for humans,

Huh?


If you are a human, then you are likely to prefer using Perl.

If you are a machine (or writing one), then you are likely to
prefer using XSLT.


I am a human.

I always use Perl for processing markup languages, I never use XSLT.

But that's just me.

I think that is more of an oversimplication of anything I have said.

I cannot fathom how what I said (that was not quoted, BTW) could
imply _your_ incorrect oversimplication.