It's good to see that education is serving a purpose, anyway.
Remediating buggy machine-generated code on a deadline: that has to
fall into the category of dirty jobs someone has to do. Fun.
Quite so. It's a heck of a lot better than trying to use BizTalk's
drag-and-drop "mapper", though. I even blogged about that:
http://peredur.blog.co.uk/2008/09/11/a-matter-of-style-4714835
FWIW, as I suggested, seeing constructs like
"normalize-space(element)" vs "string-length(element/text()) > 0"
is part of what tips off an expert as to whether code has been
written by a skilled practitioner of XSLT/XPath, or by a Perl or
Javascript or C programmer who has just jumped in.
Got it in one! Well, two out of three, actually. My Javascript isn't
so hot.
Or maybe by a
program written by one of these estimable people.
Not guilty
The best defense
I've heard of expressions like the latter is that it's more explicit
-- which may be true, if your audience is like you. The most honest
is that it's done out of habit.
Agreed. Languages should be used in the way they were intended to be
used. I always feel that languages have a grain, like wood. Going with
the grain is so much easier ...
And I happen to think that well-written XSLT can be really elegant. So
I'm aspiring :)
The XPath way is obscure if you don't know XPath. But I've never felt
it was wrong to give those who don't know XPath, but who are trying
to program XSLT, a little XPath exercise. :-)
Agreed again. And I'll get there. It may just take a little practice
... and a few more posts here.
:-D
Peter
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--