- From: Christian Grün <cg@basex.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 17:24:48 +0100
- To: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@gmail.com>, public-xslt-40@w3.org, Martin Honnen <martin.honnen@gmx.de>
My experience is that people have indeed been hesitant to use HOF features in the beginning. However, this has changed a lot over the years: Since higher-order functions have become very common in the JavaScript community, there is often no need anymore to teach people how all the function item works. It even occurs to me that many JavaScript developers write higher-order code without actually knowing it; and only with XQuery they learn what they do and discover the full potential. ____________________________________ On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:15 PM Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 15:53, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote: > > > > > > For me, piling on hof's is providing more and more reason for XSLT > > users to stay with XSLT 1.0 > > > > > > In the 20 years since XSLT 1.0, a large part of the user community has become familiar with functional programming paradigms as applied to languages such as Javascript, Python, and indeed Java, and 1.0 for these users seems more and more dysfunctional (pun intended). I don't think your view is typical. > > I don't see one following from the other Mike? Perhaps more > programmers are accepting and using hof's more readily. > I don't see the direct read across to XSLT, only marginally the domain > of CS grads? > > Perhaps you are right and my view is atypical. I think that will be > judged by 4.0 use compared to 1.0 and 2.0? > And likely, your sales of Saxon. > regards > > -- > Dave Pawson > XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. > Docbook FAQ. >
Received on Monday, 30 November 2020 16:25:53 UTC