[erlang-questions] Erlang documentation -- a modest proposal

Richard A. O'Keefe <>
Mon Sep 26 02:57:08 CEST 2016


It is not clear to me why Erlang document generation would involve
any XSLT.  Back when XSLT was still newish and I wanted to be a
general XMLpert I set out to learn XSLT.  One of the exercises I
did was to translate the XSLT script that the W3C were then using
to turn their documentation format into HTML into Scheme.

By the time I had finished translating the sixth page of XSLT into
Scheme and still hadn't filled up even one page of Scheme, I decided
that XSLT was not for me.  No, I would use languages like Scheme,
Prolog, Erlang, Haskell, Smalltalk, even on occasion C (yes *C*
with a suitable library being shorter and clearer than XSLT),
languages that had decent data structures and less inhumane syntax,

Now XSL has two parts: the transformation language and the flow objects
schema, and I'm not saying anything against XSL-FO.  It's just using
XSLT to express transformations when we have Erlang that puzzles me.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list