3 ms·
In what way is my post "ironic"? I would dearly love to know. Do you think my defense of XML is somehow that I am too lazy to know alternatives. You would be pa
by inversionOf 11y ago
In what way is my post "ironic"? I would dearly love to know. Do you think my defense of XML is somehow that I am too lazy to know alternatives. You would be painfully wrong, dear friend, though such is a go to among the intellectually lazy (how many failed NoSQL projects were justified on notions of "people who criticize elements of it are just old and fear change". It's the laziest, most unprofessional retort possible, and fueled about a year of content on Hacker News, and was the meat of a million failed adventures)
My post will be pummeled by the defensive, and that's okay.
- stonogo 11y agoAll of your invective was exactly what programmers were saying to XML proponents in the early days of XML. I still can't entirely tell if you're deliberately doing this or if you really are just wholly unaware of yourself. > The notion that binary serialization is difficult comes from the most profoundly lazy evaluations possible, where the most minimal of up front understanding are effort are eschewed if you can just open a text file and insert some giant mystery meat bags of XML. etc etc
- inversionOf 11y agoI recall approximately no one making that argument. That isn't to say there aren't terrible misuses of XML (the database within a database notion that, while sometimes necessary, is every beginner's mistake), but you're juxtaposing an absurd invention that isn't actually real at all. XML filled a role.