Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by willseth 340 days ago
You keep making assertions and generalizations without backing them up with anything concrete while simultaneously moving goalposts. In the cases where you do, you’re just wrong: XSLT is not held back by licensing, it doesn’t “require one liners”, and it has supported JSON since 3.0, which has been around for almost a decade.
1 comments
Quarrelsome 340 days ago
why the fuck would you want to use it with json.

XSLT was held back by licensing, its why everything supports 1.0 and barely anything supports 2.0. If 2.0 was released for free then everything would use 2.0.

link
willseth 339 days ago
Why wouldn’t you just Google instead of repeatedly insisting on things that are wrong?

https://www.npmjs.com/package/saxon-js https://github.com/Saxonica/Saxon-HE

link
Quarrelsome 339 days ago
well then tell me why .NET's XSLT platform is rooted in 1.0 instead of just saying "no". From my understanding licensing was a factor that played into the reasons why .NET natively remains on 1.0. The transition to 2.0 appeared to have specific friction: why?

for reference: I'm not talking about today, I'm talking about that point in time where (for example) .NET could have adopted XSLT 2.0 but chose not to.

link
int_19h 339 days ago
.NET didn't transition to XSLT 2.0 for the simple reason that demand wasn't really there. The way they saw it, LINQ was a better all-around option, with XLINQ specifically being an adequate replacement for XPath, and VB even got a bunch of special syntax to work with XML that made it more concise than XSLT in many cases: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/visual-basic/progra...

That said, it is emphatically not true that XSLT 2+ was somehow license-restricted. I worked at a company that used XSLT 2.0 and XQuery for code generation back in 2006, and we used the free edition with Saxon with no issues - paid versions had some optimizations and features like static type checking which we simply didn't need.

For the most part, XSLT 1.0 was "good enough" for most cases when XML was still the primary interchange format, and later JSON took over so there was less incentive for framework providers to spend resources on keeping up-to-date with the standard. Especially since XSLT 2.0 was such a massive leap in many ways, including a different data model that made many existing XSLT 1.0 processors incompatible in ways that required a massive redesign.

link
Quarrelsome 339 days ago
Thank you for the correction <3.
link