Open Office is one of the big offenders of the "Microsoft does this and looks like that, we must follow suit" mentality. Except even though the interface looks indentical, and 90% of the features function the same way, there's a few things that don't work as expected and lead to an incredibly amount of frustration. And what's worse is there's really no features that I'm going to use that aren't already existant in MS Office, and have been for some time.
XML is inefficient enough in terms of processing power. Every derivative of XML like XSL, XForms, and any other derived "language" of XML is exponentially more inefficient. I do use XML for some things - the things it does well (config files, multi-lingual sites, etc.). However, I would argue that no matter how many acronyms with an "X" in the name you use, there is more straight forward, more maintainable, and MUCH more efficient code out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Open Office is one of the big offenders of the "Microsoft does this and looks like that, we must follow suit" mentality. Except even though the interface looks indentical, and 90% of the features function the same way, there's a few things that don't work as expected and lead to an incredibly amount of frustration. And what's worse is there's really no features that I'm going to use that aren't already existant in MS Office, and have been for some time.
XML is inefficient enough in terms of processing power. Every derivative of XML like XSL, XForms, and any other derived "language" of XML is exponentially more inefficient. I do use XML for some things - the things it does well (config files, multi-lingual sites, etc.). However, I would argue that no matter how many acronyms with an "X" in the name you use, there is more straight forward, more maintainable, and MUCH more efficient code out there.