Comment by xg15
3 months ago
That's not completely wrong, but also misses some nuance. E.g. the thread mentions the fact that web support is still stuck at XSLT 1.0 as a reason for removal.
But as far as I know, there were absolutely zero efforts by browser vendors before to support newer versions of the language, while there was enormous energy to improve JavaScript.
I don't want to imply that if they had just added support for XSLT 3.0 then everyone would be using XSLT instead of JavaScript today and the latest SIMD optimizations of Chrome's XPath pipeline would make the HN front-page. The language is just too bad for that.
But I think it's true that there exists a feedback loop: Browsers can and do influence how much a technology is adopted, by making the tech less or more painful to use. Then turning around and saying no one is using the tech, so we'll remove it, is a bit dishonest.
Javascript was instantly a hit from the day it was released, and it grew from there.
XSLT never took off. Ever. It has never been a major force on the web, not even for five minutes. Even during the "XML all the things!" phase of the software engineering world, with every tailwind it would ever had, it was never a serious player.
There was, at no point, any reason to invest in it any farther.
Moreover, even if you push a button and rewrite history so that even so it was heavily invested in anyhow, I see no reason to believe it would have ever been a major force in that alternate history either. I would personally contend that it has always been a bad idea, and if anything, it has been unduly propped up by the browsers and overinvested in as it is. But perhaps less inflammatorily and more objectively, it has always been a foreign paradigm that most programmers have no experience in, and this was even more true in the "XML all the things!" era which predates the initial Haskell burst that pushed FP forward by a good solid decade, and the prospects of it ever being popular were never all that great.
i also don't see XSLT solving any problem that javascript could not solve. heck, if you rally need XSLT in the browser, using javascript you could even call some library like saxonjs, or you could run it webassembly.
How do you format a raw XML file in the browser without XSLT?
13 replies →
True, but that raises the question, why don't the browsers do that? I think no one would object if they removed XSLT from the browser's core and instead loaded up some WASM/JavaScript implementation when some XSLT is actually encountered. Sort of like a "built-in extension".
Then browser devs could treat it like an extension (plus some small shims in the core) while the public API wouldn't have to change.
1 reply →
You can have template includes that are auto interpreter by the browser - no need to write code AFAIK using XSLT.
11 replies →
It solves the problem of not requiring a full turing machine with a giant API that has a history of actual exploits and not just FUD behind it.
1 reply →
>while there was enormous energy to improve JavaScript
What was the point of it though? People transpile from other languages anyway and pull megabytes of npm dependencies.
This question in analogous to what is the point of better CPUs when people use compilers/assemblers instead of writing binaries in an hex editor.