4 ms·

Thank you for improving it. In fact, I prefer your first example and if I had thought about 30 extra seconds, I probably would have written something similar.

Thank you for improving it. In fact, I prefer your first example and if I had thought about 30 extra seconds, I probably would have written something similar. > Not that your scheme is much better, really, why are you putting you favourite language's types in the tags? My favourite one uses lists and binaries instead of vectors and strings, you know. Because that was just an example that came up in my mind in less than 10 seconds to make my point. I am glad that people understood my point and even came up with better solutions to make my argument even stronger.

piaste 6y ago
> I am glad that people understood my point and even came up with better solutions to make my argument even stronger. Your smugness is unwarranted. You claimed that XML has an obvious, natural mapping to data structures. After looking at the same extremely simple data structure, two people came up with three different XML representations, each with different pros and cons. Your argument didn't come out in very good shape from that exchange.
- guiraldelli 6y ago
  > You claimed that XML has an obvious, natural mapping to data structures. That is an (i.e. your) interpretation of what I said. Please re-read my text below, in context. >>> [...] and for that purpose it's horrible because it maps very poorly to data structures in most programming language. >> [...] >> A XML file is, by definition, a context-free grammar, the same type of grammars used to specify programming languages. >> [...] >> To me, it is immediate to see the correct data structure in both examples. > After looking at the same extremely simple data structure, two people came up with three different XML representations, each with different pros and cons. > Your argument didn't come out in very good shape from that exchange. I disagree with you: both understood pretty well my data structures and came up with even clearer notation, making my point that it is a suitable grammar representation for data structures. > Your smugness is unwarranted. Seriously?

piaste 6y ago

> I am glad that people understood my point and even came up with better solutions to make my argument even stronger. Your smugness is unwarranted. You claimed that XML has an obvious, natural mapping to data structures. After looking at the same extremely simple data structure, two people came up with three different XML representations, each with different pros and cons. Your argument didn't come out in very good shape from that exchange.

guiraldelli 6y ago
> You claimed that XML has an obvious, natural mapping to data structures. That is an (i.e. your) interpretation of what I said. Please re-read my text below, in context. >>> [...] and for that purpose it's horrible because it maps very poorly to data structures in most programming language. >> [...] >> A XML file is, by definition, a context-free grammar, the same type of grammars used to specify programming languages. >> [...] >> To me, it is immediate to see the correct data structure in both examples. > After looking at the same extremely simple data structure, two people came up with three different XML representations, each with different pros and cons. > Your argument didn't come out in very good shape from that exchange. I disagree with you: both understood pretty well my data structures and came up with even clearer notation, making my point that it is a suitable grammar representation for data structures. > Your smugness is unwarranted. Seriously?