←back to thread

XSLT – Native, zero-config build system for the Web

(github.com)
392 points _kush | 3 comments | 27 Jun 25 05:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.649s | source
Show context
pjmlp ◴[27 Jun 25 07:50 UTC] No.44394682[source]▶
I love XSLT, that is what I ported my site to after the CGI phase.

Unfortunately it is not a sentiment that is shared by many, and many developers always had issues understanding the FP approach of its design, looking beyond the XML.

25 years later we have JSON and YAML formats reinventing the wheel, mostly badly, for that we already had nicely available on the XML ecosystem.

Schemas, validation, graphical transformation tools, structured editors, comments, plugins, namespaces,...

replies(2): >>44394749 #>>44394931 #
masklinn ◴[27 Jun 25 08:28 UTC] No.44394931[source]▶
> many developers always had issues understanding the FP approach of its design, looking beyond the XML.

It would probably help if xslt was not a god-awful language even before it was expressed via an even worse syntax.

replies(1): >>44395304 #
1. pjmlp ◴[27 Jun 25 09:36 UTC] No.44395304[source]▶
The root cause is that many failed to grasp XML isn't to be manually written by hand on vi, rather it is a tool oriented format.

Now ironically, we have to reach for tooling to work around the design flaws of json and yaml.

replies(1): >>44395416 #
2. masklinn ◴[27 Jun 25 09:56 UTC] No.44395416[source]▶
> The root cause is that many failed to grasp XML isn't to be manually written by hand on vi, rather it is a tool oriented format.

That reads like an indictment of using XML for a programming language.

Not that it has anything to do with the semantics of XSLT.

replies(1): >>44395439 #
3. pjmlp ◴[27 Jun 25 10:00 UTC] No.44395439[source]▶
I don't see why separate both.

XML is tooling based, and there have been plenty of tools to write XSLT on, including debugging and processing example fragments, naturally not something vi crowd ever became aware of amid their complaints.