Alexander Johannesen said:
> On 9/6/06, juanrgonzaleza@c... > I do not doubt that
> XSLT is used. But if an Amazon query returns 4712
>> results for books on Javascript, 1362 for XSLT, and 11065 for PHP...
>
> ... then perhaps that proves just the shere complexities involved in two
> programming languages that require thousands of books written
> about it to make sense of it vs. an elegant transformation language that
> doesn't require bucketloads of explanation.

Maybe! But sincerely do you think that larger number of articles and books
devoted to PHP mean that XSLT is easier?

I think that XSLT is much more difficult than other languages to learn.
Others agree with me.

<blockquote>
As a programming language, XSLT has many features -- from its use of XML
syntax to its basis in functional programming theory -- that are
unfamiliar to the average Web programmer. That means there is a steep
learning curve and often a lot of frustration.
</blockquote>

[http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-xslt/]

<blockquote>
Tim Bray declared that to understand XSLT you must first reach up with
both hands and grab the two halves of your brain peeling each back until
you have successfully turned your brain completely inside out
</blockquote>

[http://www.xsltblog.com/archives/2004/12/could_it_be_tha.html]

<blockquote>
XSLT is a notoriously difficult language to understand.
</blockquote>

[http://www.wrox.com/WileyCDA/WroxTitle/productCd-0764543814.html]

I prefer to think that XSLT is just no popular when compared to other wb
technologies. It appears to me more reasonable conclusion.

> Size can mean many things, not just popularity.

Yeah! This debate is very amazing.

>
> Alex
> --
> "Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
>                                                          - Frank Herbert
> __ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)