Re: Re: XSLT, Perl, Haskell, & a word on language design
On Tuesday 15 January 2002, 21:58:06, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
On Wednesday 16 January 2002 04:35, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote:
The really bad thing is that the designers of XSLT [1.0] made the language free of side effects but then failed to include fundamental support for basic functional programming idioms.
So, there are actually people who seriously take XSLT to be a programming language? Interesting, as I think it is just overdoing an
already overdone concept (hint: it's a poor ascii tree).
Yes, there are such people. Actually, all the examples from John Hughes' article "Why functional programming matters" can be implemented in XSLT 1.0, as shown in the recently published article: "The Functional Programming Language XSLT" at http://www.topxml.com/xsl/articles/fp Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 05 February 2002 12:29, Dimitre Novatchev wrote:
So, there are actually people who seriously take XSLT to be a programming language? Interesting, as I think it is just overdoing an
already overdone concept (hint: it's a poor ascii tree).
Yes, there are such people. Actually, all the examples from John Hughes' article "Why functional programming matters" can be implemented in XSLT 1.0, as shown in the recently published article:
"The Functional Programming Language XSLT" at http://www.topxml.com/xsl/articles/fp
It's nice to know about the computational power and expressive capabilities of a formal system ;) On the other hand, the examples in the article did not strike me as programs written in a programming language. They seemed to me more like an inefficient way of describing some programs. It is of course a proof of concept type of argument in the paper I assume. I think I can implement some functional concepts using templates in C++, but would that pass as a functional programming language? Besides, I thought two of the primary design goals for a programming language were readability and writability. In my opinion, XSLT lacks at least those two due to its XML syntax. Keep functional, - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8ZJ7qfAeuFodNU5wRAktzAJ0ZNpZlYwGDzquUHbWM6o9DHyBiHwCcDkAu aLAIs00zoLi3GELLC7iuixk= =MMI0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (2)
-
Dimitre Novatchev -
Eray Ozkural (exa)