4 ms·

I dont think we need to go down the where there is smoke there is fire route. These implementations are bad for a variety of reasons but not because XML is bad

I dont think we need to go down the where there is smoke there is fire route. These implementations are bad for a variety of reasons but not because XML is bad itself. As I said, XML on Java is often a hassle but that is neither XML's fault nor Java's but the responsibility of those developers who thought going bananas on interfaces, factories, and alike is actually a good idea. As for XML, its syntax is somewhat more verbose than JSON's but thats about it. ----- Just to provide one very basic example XML <people> <person> <name>John Doe</name> <dob>2000-01-01</dob> </person> <person> <name>Peter Smith</name> <dob>2001-01-01</dob> </person> </people> JSON [ { "name": "John Doe", "dob": "2000-01-01" }, { "name": "Peter Smith", "dob": "2001-01-01" } ] Apart from XML being more verbose (but also providing more context), these two documents are virtually identical, they even have the same number of lines. And if one used XML actually idiomatically the example would slim down by a lot <people> <person name="John Doe" dob="2000-01-01" /> <person name="Peter Smith" dob="2001-01-01" /> </people>

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rs23296008n1 7y ago
In the first example you show simple but verbose XML. Then you show typical JSON. Then you show concise XML; this last example shows the parsing overhead when XML is being concise. Suddenly you go from just tags with content between them to key=value pairs and a flag to skip a check for the closing tag. Parser complexity creeps in on that last example in particular. The first example was probably in the form the (possibly) easiest of all three examples to parse. This all shows XML needing to support at least two different but related mechanisms. I'm not saying any of this is bad or that it makes parsing impossible: its just a source of complexity. JSON has key value syntax as well. XML has this flexibility but it quickly adds up. This is not a fault - it's the whole point of XML. I'm not sure what your goal here is. I've got hard data for the work I'm doing showing XML doesn't provide significant benefits in exchange for its added complexity. Others likely have done similar for their purposes. Matching the solution to the problem is generally a good idea. Are you perhaps too biased towards a single solution without considering the alternatives? I don't/can't know. Something to consider. (I don't consider XML as useful now because it has shown itself no longer a match for the types of problems I'm solving YMMV)
- datalist 7y ago
  I provided exactly one example and that was a comparison between XML and JSON. The follow up was just an additional remark that idiomatic XML would be even shorter. I am afraid I cannot follow your argument about complexity as any parser worth its money WILL BE ABLE to parse XML without any significant overhead and - as I mentioned numerous times - issues do not stem from how an XML document is built but from the fact that (mostly) Java parsers attempted to implement about each possible OOP pattern instead of going for KISS. The code over-engineering is the issue, not the document structure. I am really not sure what point you are trying to make and why you are diverting from the actual topic I addressed. I am slightly surprised about your bias remark, as it seems to be you who is strongly biased towards JSON despite my initial comments as well as the "significant benefits" as I never made any such claim, on the contrary it is you once again who seems to make such about JSON. Maybe you can post the "hard data" you referred to. Bottom line (once again), XML and JSON are extremely similar and saying one is better than the other simply shows lack of experience. Then of course, if you parse 70 kilobyte JSON documents with a lean parser, but parse 12 megabyte XML documents with a typical Java parser, nobody needs to be surprised the latter will perform abysmally compared to the former, but that would be a whole different subject.
  - datalist 7y ago
    Not that it actually matters much[1] but as you insist very much on performance here a benchmark http://www.navioo.com/ajax/examples/json/test.php http://www.navioo.com/ajax/examples/json/test.php In the first example XML actually is a tad faster, in the second example it is practically a tie (JSON wins by three or four milliseconds). [1] Are we seriously arguing about milliseconds when it comes to document parsing?
  - rs23296008n1 7y ago
    To answer your followup post, your defence of XML is interesting but I'm not referring to milliseconds, its about hours. Not talking about bits or bytes, I'm referring to gigabytes of RAM and i/o. Compressed data streams assumed, with data i/o requirements a definite important factor but not the only one. I'm not an evangelist for JSON, I'm someone who ran tests and came to conclusions with the help of multiple others. These weren't a generic benchmark for random or general academic purposes. These were representative samples of datasets we're actively going to be or actually are already using. Even in my other interests I'm using JSON for configuration and data transfer. It shines there quite nicely. XML was generally suitable but its verbosity didn't provide any real advantage and the library support tried to drag in too many dependencies. TSV files weren't suitable even though they were simpler and we had control of the data sources. You mention Java / Javascript but neither is what we're using. There's probably some irony in not using javascript for JSON i/o but it is what it is. (The purists will agree there's no requirement and so do we). You also didn't mention in passing any of the other interchange / file and document formats we actively compared. JSON / XML etc were just some of the candidates. Thank you for letting me know that the teams I work with demonstrate "lack of experience". I've forgotten which logical fallacy that is but I'll leave that to someone else to know or look up. I'm just glad I've kept beginner's mind: its a key aspect of neuro-plastic mindset. Its a requirement for keeping an open mind. We won't be ignoring our testing on real data subsets. The results are clear enough. (The samples we tested with were around 5MB, 50Mb, 1GB, 10GB and 50GB in size as various combinations of lists and trees etc.)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rs23296008n1 7y ago

In the first example you show simple but verbose XML. Then you show typical JSON. Then you show concise XML; this last example shows the parsing overhead when XML is being concise. Suddenly you go from just tags with content between them to key=value pairs and a flag to skip a check for the closing tag. Parser complexity creeps in on that last example in particular. The first example was probably in the form the (possibly) easiest of all three examples to parse. This all shows XML needing to support at least two different but related mechanisms. I'm not saying any of this is bad or that it makes parsing impossible: its just a source of complexity. JSON has key value syntax as well. XML has this flexibility but it quickly adds up. This is not a fault - it's the whole point of XML. I'm not sure what your goal here is. I've got hard data for the work I'm doing showing XML doesn't provide significant benefits in exchange for its added complexity. Others likely have done similar for their purposes. Matching the solution to the problem is generally a good idea. Are you perhaps too biased towards a single solution without considering the alternatives? I don't/can't know. Something to consider. (I don't consider XML as useful now because it has shown itself no longer a match for the types of problems I'm solving YMMV)

datalist 7y ago
I provided exactly one example and that was a comparison between XML and JSON. The follow up was just an additional remark that idiomatic XML would be even shorter. I am afraid I cannot follow your argument about complexity as any parser worth its money WILL BE ABLE to parse XML without any significant overhead and - as I mentioned numerous times - issues do not stem from how an XML document is built but from the fact that (mostly) Java parsers attempted to implement about each possible OOP pattern instead of going for KISS. The code over-engineering is the issue, not the document structure. I am really not sure what point you are trying to make and why you are diverting from the actual topic I addressed. I am slightly surprised about your bias remark, as it seems to be you who is strongly biased towards JSON despite my initial comments as well as the "significant benefits" as I never made any such claim, on the contrary it is you once again who seems to make such about JSON. Maybe you can post the "hard data" you referred to. Bottom line (once again), XML and JSON are extremely similar and saying one is better than the other simply shows lack of experience. Then of course, if you parse 70 kilobyte JSON documents with a lean parser, but parse 12 megabyte XML documents with a typical Java parser, nobody needs to be surprised the latter will perform abysmally compared to the former, but that would be a whole different subject.
- datalist 7y ago
  Not that it actually matters much[1] but as you insist very much on performance here a benchmark http://www.navioo.com/ajax/examples/json/test.php http://www.navioo.com/ajax/examples/json/test.php In the first example XML actually is a tad faster, in the second example it is practically a tie (JSON wins by three or four milliseconds). [1] Are we seriously arguing about milliseconds when it comes to document parsing?
- rs23296008n1 7y ago
  To answer your followup post, your defence of XML is interesting but I'm not referring to milliseconds, its about hours. Not talking about bits or bytes, I'm referring to gigabytes of RAM and i/o. Compressed data streams assumed, with data i/o requirements a definite important factor but not the only one. I'm not an evangelist for JSON, I'm someone who ran tests and came to conclusions with the help of multiple others. These weren't a generic benchmark for random or general academic purposes. These were representative samples of datasets we're actively going to be or actually are already using. Even in my other interests I'm using JSON for configuration and data transfer. It shines there quite nicely. XML was generally suitable but its verbosity didn't provide any real advantage and the library support tried to drag in too many dependencies. TSV files weren't suitable even though they were simpler and we had control of the data sources. You mention Java / Javascript but neither is what we're using. There's probably some irony in not using javascript for JSON i/o but it is what it is. (The purists will agree there's no requirement and so do we). You also didn't mention in passing any of the other interchange / file and document formats we actively compared. JSON / XML etc were just some of the candidates. Thank you for letting me know that the teams I work with demonstrate "lack of experience". I've forgotten which logical fallacy that is but I'll leave that to someone else to know or look up. I'm just glad I've kept beginner's mind: its a key aspect of neuro-plastic mindset. Its a requirement for keeping an open mind. We won't be ignoring our testing on real data subsets. The results are clear enough. (The samples we tested with were around 5MB, 50Mb, 1GB, 10GB and 50GB in size as various combinations of lists and trees etc.)