| ▲ | mananaysiempre 4 days ago | |
> XSLT itself should've been simpler of course I don’t think XSLT 1.0 is all that complicated. It’s a declarative language for transforming trees into trees or strings in an arbitrary manner, and you could argue that problem statement is too wide, but if you’re OK with it then I don’t think there’s any inappropriate complexity in the solution. The surface syntax is bad, true, but that’s because of its verbosity, not its complexity. Once you put a bit of an Algol veneer on it[1], it becomes perfectly palatable. | ||