XSLT, Perl, Haskell, & a word on language design
Tue, 5 Feb 2002 02:29:46 -0800 (PST)
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
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!