Re:Assembly for XML
by masklinn on Thursday October 30, 2014 @01:59PM
(#8534623)
This seems like a procedural step back from XSLT.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly am not fond of XSLT, its programmatic fundamentals were certainly lacking (technically there, practically a pain in the ass) and the implicit nature of the "current node" always weirded me out, but the very descriptive match/transform of XSLT was reasonably great, any not-too-badly-written stylesheet would show the output structure shine through.
If I wanted something to replace XSLT, I'd take adding XLST-type (match-and-transform) capabilities to a general-purpose language, not attempting to extract a fucked-up version of a jQuery DOM manipulation chain.
Re:Assembly for XML
by yegor256a on Friday October 31, 2014 @05:05AM
(#8537883)
Yes, exactly a procedural step back from XSLT. In certain situations (most of them are that) you don't want to bother with XSLT. You just want to add attribute to the node, in a few lines of code.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly am not fond of XSLT, its programmatic fundamentals were certainly lacking (technically there, practically a pain in the ass) and the implicit nature of the "current node" always weirded me out, but the very descriptive match/transform of XSLT was reasonably great, any not-too-badly-written stylesheet would show the output structure shine through.
If I wanted something to replace XSLT, I'd take adding XLST-type (match-and-transform) capabilities to a general-purpose language, not attempting to extract a fucked-up version of a jQuery DOM manipulation chain.