8 ms·
> I'm not sure how well you can separate that: most people are going to hit those bumps when they get started. Your XML example is spot on and I agree. However
by WClayFerguson 6y ago
> I'm not sure how well you can separate that: most people are going to hit those bumps when they get started.
Your XML example is spot on and I agree. However I'd never say XML itself was flawed specifically because some of the tools, APIs, and specs built on top of it were flawed.
That would be like saying electricity itself is flawed because you don't like electric tooth brushes.
Likewise, Java was not flawed just because J2EE was a mess. The fact that J2EE drove people to NodeJS, has nothing whatsoever to do with Java itself.
- josephg 6y ago> However I'd never say XML itself was flawed I’ll say XML was flawed. It was a great initiative behind the wrong data model. The idea was to take what made sense for documents (strings with markup) and use that to represent everything else. But most data structures are really awkward expressed that way, and you run into weird decisions like: Should my map be a list of items or a set of attribute pairs in a single node? Is the key a node or an attribute? When does order matter? Etc. If the XML standards group started with JSON or YAML or .. anything else, I think they would have made something really useful. But we didn’t think of that at the time, so instead we have XML. An impressive monolith built on a dead mountain.
- WClayFerguson 6y agoYou took the first half of my sentence pretended like that was the complete thought. It wasn't. The whole sentence is the thought. What I meant was "You can't say technology X is flawed because tools using X are flawed".