Weighing in on XSL / Standards
david at megginson.com
Mon May 24 20:57:58 BST 1999
John Cowan writes:
> [statement that XSL is "at least two orders of magnitude more
> complicated" than CSS1]
> Gak, what a thought. Can we really use tools that differ by
> a complexity of 100 from other tools? Consider the idea of
> a programming language 100 times simpler than C, or 100 times
> more complex than Standard C++. Can the mind really grasp
> such a thing?
Sure, why not? Complexity is mostly subjective anyway, and every new
feature potentially creates interactions with existing features, so
I'm not at any risk of being proven wrong (or right).
Paul Prescod would probably tell us that Python is 100 times simpler
than C; personally, I'd suggest that any programming language with
garbage collection is automatically 10 times simpler than one without,
especially for newbies.
Isn't ADA 100 times more complex than Standard C++, or were the people
who told me that just disgruntled?
All the best,
David Megginson david at megginson.com
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev