ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject RE: [VOTE] procedural versus purely declarative
Date Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:07:46 GMT
At 04:38  23/4/01 +0100, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
>XSLT is nice for little things. But it is a language 10 times more complex
>than ANT. If that is the alternative we are givin real users, I do not think
>it will be useful for 90% of them. I also fail to see how you can do
>property expansion and such using plain XSLT. Without that we have non of
>the power of ANT.

Can you give me a (good) use case where XSLT would not suffice?

>Humm, by this reasoning, we could remove fileset wild characters since we
>can achieved the same thing using templates ;-)

Exactly ! But thats gonna have to wait a bit longer till we have a decent
autoconf like tool about ;) Currently one of the reasons ant fails for
large projects is because it doesn't have this. Luckily it makes up for it
with a low execution time and lots of in-JVM stuff.

>Of course the point is simplicity of use. I am not sure we will gain that
>with XSLT. We will need something taylored to ANTs needs.

Feel free to create a new language - xslt has the advantage of being
standard and well known. Sure it is not very pretty or simple but every
alternative is complex. If you have looked at any of the alternate systems
that aren't just a morass of scripts (ie automake, imake, etc) they all
have that complexity/power balance. 

Now look at systems who have tried to do xslt but more simply - theres a
few around (Cocoons XSP at is an example). Now how many of
them achieve any measure of simplicity over XSLT - at what cost do they do
it ? (ie loose power, completely new/foreign etc).


| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |

View raw message