[Latty]

I just don't buy it - sure it can be used to do good things, but it's not about learning curves or "grasping it" - it's about "is this a good way for humans to write and read this transformation", and the answer is clearly no.

XML is not a good form for a transformation language. It's not the quality of the code written in it or anything like that.

Take XSLT and change the syntax, and sure, it might be great. You can't ignore the terrible, terrible choice of making the transformation itself XML. It's completely unreadable and horrific to write.

[eponeponepon]

Conversely, I personally find it very readable, and enjoyable to write; don't forget, when people talk about using the right tool for a job, it's not all about the language and the task - the dynamic between the person and the language is just as important :-)

[Latty]

The vast majority of people find XSLT to be an unreadable mess - and for any non-trivial project that requires collaboration, just because it's possible for one person to like it doesn't make it a good choice.

If most people agree a representation is terrible, it's a bad choice for anything serious, because suddenly only a subset of your team or contributors can work on it effectively.

There is a reason XML isn't used as syntax for programming languages. Anyone claiming that an `if` construct, for example, is well represented by a mess of XML tags has a different brain to me and the vast majority of people I've met.

XSLT was meant to be a general-purpose tool. Having a syntax that the vast majority of people find incredibly hard to work with is clearly a huge problem with the spec.