5 ms·

Your contrived example falls flat because JSON is flat out better for most use-cases and anyone having a discussion about it will probably fit into those use-ca

Your contrived example falls flat because JSON is flat out better for most use-cases and anyone having a discussion about it will probably fit into those use-cases. People don't discuss solutions in a vacuum. Ideally they'd think about what the potential fallbacks of using XML alternatives are before jumping into a new tech. Which they will, unless they're really really new

umvi 7y ago
> Your contrived example falls flat because JSON is flat out better for most use-cases and anyone having a discussion about it will probably fit into those use-cases. Easy to say with hindsight now that it is massively popular and has a huge ecosystem of parsers for every conceivable language. At the time it was invented though, it was yet another data exchange format and I'm sure there were a lot of grey beards pooh-poohing it.
- DocTomoe 7y ago
  Back in the day, XML was almost universally hated by the people you describe as "greybeards", mostly because it was a convoluted "one size fits all" approach, hijacked by business, that ate bandwidth for overhead with none of it's promised benefits actually materializing (because everyone created their own, quasi-proprietary XML Scheme).
  - wolco 7y ago
    I remember a .NET developer using it in place of json. That was the slowest system I've ever seen.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
The funny thing is there are developers[1][2][3] out there who would like to turn JSON into XML. [1] https://json-schema.org https://json-schema.org [2] http://www.jsoniq.org http://www.jsoniq.org [3] https://www.p6r.com/articles/2008/05/06/xslt-and-xpath-for-json/ https://www.p6r.com/articles/2008/05/06/xslt-and-xpath-for-j...
Ididntdothis 7y ago
I would say JSON is a little bit better than XML in some areas but also worse in a some. XML could easily have been extended with a few attributes. there was no real need for doing something completely different.
nradov 7y ago
JSON is worse than XML if your use case requires namespaces.
- kickopotomus 7y ago
  Tangentially, this is one of the reasons that I am a fan of EDN[1] over JSON. [1]: https://github.com/edn-format/edn https://github.com/edn-format/edn

umvi 7y ago

> Your contrived example falls flat because JSON is flat out better for most use-cases and anyone having a discussion about it will probably fit into those use-cases. Easy to say with hindsight now that it is massively popular and has a huge ecosystem of parsers for every conceivable language. At the time it was invented though, it was yet another data exchange format and I'm sure there were a lot of grey beards pooh-poohing it.

DocTomoe 7y ago
Back in the day, XML was almost universally hated by the people you describe as "greybeards", mostly because it was a convoluted "one size fits all" approach, hijacked by business, that ate bandwidth for overhead with none of it's promised benefits actually materializing (because everyone created their own, quasi-proprietary XML Scheme).
- wolco 7y ago
  I remember a .NET developer using it in place of json. That was the slowest system I've ever seen.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

The funny thing is there are developers[1][2][3] out there who would like to turn JSON into XML. [1] https://json-schema.org https://json-schema.org [2] http://www.jsoniq.org http://www.jsoniq.org [3] https://www.p6r.com/articles/2008/05/06/xslt-and-xpath-for-json/ https://www.p6r.com/articles/2008/05/06/xslt-and-xpath-for-j...

Ididntdothis 7y ago

I would say JSON is a little bit better than XML in some areas but also worse in a some. XML could easily have been extended with a few attributes. there was no real need for doing something completely different.

nradov 7y ago

JSON is worse than XML if your use case requires namespaces.

kickopotomus 7y ago
Tangentially, this is one of the reasons that I am a fan of EDN[1] over JSON. [1]: https://github.com/edn-format/edn https://github.com/edn-format/edn