14 lines
1 KiB
Text
14 lines
1 KiB
Text
Dear XSLT fans,
|
|
|
|
Please don't insist on calling your bastard child of a language "functional." Just because it got one thing sort-of right (immutable data), doesn't mean that it in any way represents a real functional language.
|
|
|
|
I'm not even talking about the hideously verbose syntax, or the completely obtuse data model. The fact that you can't know what any single line of code does without reviewing __every other line in the program__ makes this language an abomination.
|
|
|
|
Don't believe me? Ask me for examples, I'll prove it. But anyone who's used XSLT for multi-file projects likely knows I'm right.
|
|
|
|
Oh, and the fact that you can call a language functional when it *lacks first class functions* makes my eye twitch. I'm tempted to upload a video of my eye twitching just to prove it.
|
|
|
|
Sincerely,
|
|
A Haskell programmer who spends an inordinate amount of time debugging bad XSLT.
|
|
|
|
PS: I would gladly write a program in Java, or C++, or likely assembly, over XSLT any day. Those languages may have issues, but they're sane tools. XSLT is just fundamentally broken.
|