3 ms·

> It doesn't help either that scarce development resources are needlessly fragmented between XMPP and matrix. In my experience, there's virtually no overlap be

> It doesn't help either that scarce development resources are needlessly fragmented between XMPP and matrix. In my experience, there's virtually no overlap between the two groups, and therefore no fragmentation. And for good reason: XMPP is a nightmare to implement, so there's a significant group of developers that just won't touch it, but that might be interested in working on Matrix. And yes, part of the blame for that lies in the usage of XML. While XML can be useful to represent complex data or documents, it's unsuitable as an over-the-wire format because it doesn't have a directly mappable representation in most languages, due to the combination of attributes and child nodes. This problem doesn't exist for JSON, because pretty much every language directly supports arrays, objects/maps and primitives. This makes a JSON-based protocol much more pleasant to work with, as there is less data-wrangling complexity involved.

zinid 8y ago
> In my experience, there's virtually no overlap between the two groups, and therefore no fragmentation Right, so there are two groups of developers working on different IM protocols. If this is not fragmentation (of developers) then what is it?
tannhaeuser 8y ago
A chat log is rich text with emojis, photos/videos and other binary data, memes, rich inline citations, block quotes, attachments, and endless new formatting practices and gimicks that are unknown yet as digital communication evolves. XML/SGML is made for this kind of application. End users don't throw arrays and maps at each other on chat, so JSON's affinity to co-inductive datastructures of programming languages (actually just JavaScript) doesn't help all that much when you have to invent ad-hoc markup over arrays, maps, and primitive types, or ad-hoc hex string encodings of binary data. TBH flocking to JSON because JavaScript can represent it as an object literal is a pretty junior attitude and reflects poorly on the matrix effort. It's equivalent to using BASIC or notepad.exe because that's what's installed on a computer out of the box.
zinid 8y ago
> This problem doesn't exist for JSON, because pretty much every language directly supports arrays, objects/maps and primitives No, JSON will not map directly to a language with advanced type system (with tuples, variants, etc). Even in Elm it's recommended to write a decoder to convert incoming JSON into an internal structure. So in fact the mapping is very poor. And I see no difference in this regard: both XML and JSON is crap.
pferde 8y ago
You know, I never understood why people consider JSON better than XML. Yes, any particular use of XML can be overengineered (namespaces, I'm looking at you), but as long as you control the format or scheme or however you want to call it, it's exactly the same thing as JSON, but encoded differently. In the end, it's all just keys and values or lists of values, arranged in a tree-like hierarchy. And frankly, I would rather be looking at a well-designed XML format than at a well designed JSON format, with its braces and brackets and commas.
- tannhaeuser 8y ago
  I don't like XML namespaces either (and neither is the original authors of the namespace spec very proud of it [1]). They're greeting you with verbose and rather ugly pseudo-URLs (another bad and confusing concept IMO) and xmlns:xyz boilerplate on page one when you're interested in quickly gleaning XML data. But arguably, chat log data is actually an appropriate use cases for namespaces, given that you would want a text format that can evolve over time in a heterogenous client and server ecosystem, yet provide a baseline functionality supported by all clients. It's also very helpful if you want to keep chats for archival rather than treating chat as an ephemeral medium. OTOH people have said the excessive use of namespaces and other XML modularization features, and too many XEPs/RFC specs is turning them away from developing XMPP software. There are valid use cases for JSON though such as ad-hoc data protocols where you own both the server and (JavaScript) client and maintain those in the same repo, and when dealing with simple app data that doesn't benefit from using markup constructs. [1]: https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/01/17/Extensible-JSON https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/01/17/Extensibl...

zinid 8y ago

> In my experience, there's virtually no overlap between the two groups, and therefore no fragmentation Right, so there are two groups of developers working on different IM protocols. If this is not fragmentation (of developers) then what is it?

tannhaeuser 8y ago

A chat log is rich text with emojis, photos/videos and other binary data, memes, rich inline citations, block quotes, attachments, and endless new formatting practices and gimicks that are unknown yet as digital communication evolves. XML/SGML is made for this kind of application. End users don't throw arrays and maps at each other on chat, so JSON's affinity to co-inductive datastructures of programming languages (actually just JavaScript) doesn't help all that much when you have to invent ad-hoc markup over arrays, maps, and primitive types, or ad-hoc hex string encodings of binary data. TBH flocking to JSON because JavaScript can represent it as an object literal is a pretty junior attitude and reflects poorly on the matrix effort. It's equivalent to using BASIC or notepad.exe because that's what's installed on a computer out of the box.

zinid 8y ago

> This problem doesn't exist for JSON, because pretty much every language directly supports arrays, objects/maps and primitives No, JSON will not map directly to a language with advanced type system (with tuples, variants, etc). Even in Elm it's recommended to write a decoder to convert incoming JSON into an internal structure. So in fact the mapping is very poor. And I see no difference in this regard: both XML and JSON is crap.

pferde 8y ago

You know, I never understood why people consider JSON better than XML. Yes, any particular use of XML can be overengineered (namespaces, I'm looking at you), but as long as you control the format or scheme or however you want to call it, it's exactly the same thing as JSON, but encoded differently. In the end, it's all just keys and values or lists of values, arranged in a tree-like hierarchy. And frankly, I would rather be looking at a well-designed XML format than at a well designed JSON format, with its braces and brackets and commas.

tannhaeuser 8y ago
I don't like XML namespaces either (and neither is the original authors of the namespace spec very proud of it [1]). They're greeting you with verbose and rather ugly pseudo-URLs (another bad and confusing concept IMO) and xmlns:xyz boilerplate on page one when you're interested in quickly gleaning XML data. But arguably, chat log data is actually an appropriate use cases for namespaces, given that you would want a text format that can evolve over time in a heterogenous client and server ecosystem, yet provide a baseline functionality supported by all clients. It's also very helpful if you want to keep chats for archival rather than treating chat as an ephemeral medium. OTOH people have said the excessive use of namespaces and other XML modularization features, and too many XEPs/RFC specs is turning them away from developing XMPP software. There are valid use cases for JSON though such as ad-hoc data protocols where you own both the server and (JavaScript) client and maintain those in the same repo, and when dealing with simple app data that doesn't benefit from using markup constructs. [1]: https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/01/17/Extensible-JSON https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/01/17/Extensibl...