Velocity Reviews > XML > Re: What is the best html to latex program on the market or the internet ?

# Re: What is the best html to latex program on the market or the internet ?

tsy
Guest
Posts: n/a

 10-29-2007
On Oct 27, 5:06 am, Peter Flynn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:21:29 -0700, tsy wrote:
> > Is XSLT way easier than using a decent scripting language with a SAX
> > library?

>
> Yes. XSLT *is* a decent scripting (well, transformation-to-other-formats)
> language.

(I was sure I sent an answer to this, but it does not show up.
To the best of my knowledge XSLT is at least much more verbose then
popular scripting languages like Perl or Python. There should be other
difficulties with it. Would it be easier on average for a randomly
chosen TeX user to use XSLT or, for example, Lua with SAX library?

Joseph Kesselman
Guest
Posts: n/a

 10-29-2007
tsy wrote:
> Would it be easier on average for a randomly
> chosen TeX user to use XSLT or, for example, Lua with SAX library?

I haven't used Lua so I can't answer directly, but I strongly suspect
the answer remains "Depends on exactly what the task is, and depends on
whether the TeX user has ever worked with rule-driven languages before."

--
Joe Kesselman / Beware the fury of a patient man. -- John Dryden

Juergen Kahrs
Guest
Posts: n/a

 10-30-2007
Joseph Kesselman wrote:
> tsy wrote:
>> Would it be easier on average for a randomly
>> chosen TeX user to use XSLT or, for example, Lua with SAX library?

>
> I haven't used Lua so I can't answer directly, but I strongly suspect
> the answer remains "Depends on exactly what the task is, and depends on
> whether the TeX user has ever worked with rule-driven languages before."

That's right. Most people expect programming languages
to be of the procedural kind. They are confused if they
have to adapt their thinking to a rule-driven language
like Prolog, AWK or XSLT.

Pavel Lepin
Guest
Posts: n/a

 10-30-2007

tsy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed) .com>:
> On Oct 27, 5:06 am, Peter Flynn <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:21:29 -0700, tsy wrote:
>> > Is XSLT way easier than using a decent scripting
>> > language with a SAX library?

>>
>> Yes. XSLT *is* a decent scripting (well,
>> transformation-to-other-formats) language.

>
> (I was sure I sent an answer to this, but it does not show
> pardon.)

Grougle Goops is broken in more ways than I would care to
mention in a usenet post.

> To the best of my knowledge XSLT is at least much
> more verbose then popular scripting languages like Perl or
> Python.

And your point is? Yes, it uses XML syntax to represent the
code tree. No, it's actually quite terse at expressing
certain classes of transformations.

> There should be other difficulties with it. Would
> it be easier on average for a randomly chosen TeX user to
> use XSLT or, for example, Lua with SAX library?

As Joseph and Juergen already mentioned, programmers with
extensive background in imperative programming often have
If you're willing to stretch your mind a bit, though, it's
an eye-opening experience similar to being initiated into
the mysteries of Haskell, Scheme or Prolog.

--
It is rare to find learned men who are clean, do not stink,
and have a sense of humour. -- Liselotte in a letter to
Sophie, 30 Jul 1705

Joseph Kesselman
Guest
Posts: n/a

 10-30-2007
Juergen Kahrs wrote:
> That's right. Most people expect programming languages
> to be of the procedural kind. They are confused if they
> have to adapt their thinking to a rule-driven language
> like Prolog, AWK or XSLT.

In my experience most younger programmers (at least those who actually
have a CS degree) have been introduced to the concept; it's the
old-timers who haven't kept up with the field and the completely
self-taught folks who have a bit of trouble initially. And they have
less trouble if they're actually properly introduced to the ideas rather
than trying to dive in without even a tutorial.

But I do grant the point that it's a different approach and folks have
to be willing to work the way the tool is designed to work. A decade ago
I saw a pretty darned decent development tool fail to gain traction
because it was rule-based and the old fossils (ie, the folks about five
years older than I am...) were having trouble letting go of their
preconceptions and trusting it. If you haven't worked with rule-based
systems before, the transition does involve a certain leap of faith
and/or an understanding of what's being done behind the scenes.

The expressivity gained is worth it.

--
Joe Kesselman / Beware the fury of a patient man. -- John Dryden

Pavel Lepin
Guest
Posts: n/a

 10-30-2007

Joseph Kesselman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<472734e6@kcnews01>:
> Juergen Kahrs wrote:
>> That's right. Most people expect programming languages
>> to be of the procedural kind. They are confused if they
>> have to adapt their thinking to a rule-driven language
>> like Prolog, AWK or XSLT.

>
> In my experience most younger programmers (at least those
> who actually have a CS degree) have been introduced to the
> concept...

I don't have a degree (dropped out after my first year in
the university), and I must say that XSLT, which was my
first close brush with functional programming, was
absolutely enlightening.

By the way, a degree in CS does not really imply familiarity
with programming fundamentals, at least in these here
parts. All too many universities offer courses
in 'C++', 'Java', 'SQL' or, god save us, 'Dynamic HTML'
without touching the big stuff like OOA&D, functional
programming, computational complexity theory or data
structures with a ten-foot pole.

--
It is rare to find learned men who are clean, do not stink,
and have a sense of humour. -- Liselotte in a letter to
Sophie, 30 Jul 1705