Subject: Re: qualitative decline of xsl-list questions
From: "Michael H. Semcheski" <mhs-list@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:44:38 -0500
|
One thing is that debugging xslt problems takes some experience, and can seem rather different than debugging, say, javascript. In practice, I have found that as I get better at diagnosing my xslt problems, I have gotten better at debugging javascript and python too. I think that you need to apply more flexibility for diagnosing and correcting xslt problems and enhancing that ability is useful everywhere else.
Cheers,
Tom P
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
I can relate to what you are saying. When I had to take C++ in college,
I had a pretty good understanding of programming and logic (at least
thats what I thought.) The next semester, I took ML, and there was a
big learning curve, and you just couldn't "hack it together" like you
could with C++. When I came back to C++ the biggest adjustment was not
using recursion for everything, and when that is your biggest problem,
you're in good shape.
When I really started digging into xslt, it reminded me a lot of ML,
except that there were practical applications for which I could use it.
The clarity and elegance of the code seems to rub off on me when I have
to use less elegant packages, like asp.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
|---|
- Re: qualitative decline of xsl-list questions
- Chuck White - Tue, 3 Dec 2002 03:22:53 -0500 (EST)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- "Braumüller, Hans" - Tue, 3 Dec 2002 04:13:54 -0500 (EST)
- Passin, Tom - Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:29:50 -0500 (EST)
- Michael H. Semcheski - Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:39:29 -0500 (EST) <=
- Ben Robb - Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:19:53 -0500 (EST)
- Martinez, Brian - Tue, 3 Dec 2002 14:10:39 -0500 (EST)
- DPawson - Wed, 4 Dec 2002 03:12:54 -0500 (EST)
|
|
Cart
