5 ms·

I’m more impressed that they still think XML is great for project configuration .

• matsemann 6y ago
  Who cares what it's written in? While I find lots of XML configs often to be verbose, translating it to JSON would be exactly the same mess. It's often what has to be configured that's the problem, and not how or the syntax of it. If anything, XML with schema works out of the box in most IDEs with autocomplete, validation etc.,
• speed_spread 6y ago
  And I'm impressed that JSON still does not have an official, standards-body-sanctionned Schema specification. Nor does it have a thousand other little things that make XML still so solid when coding for the future.
• e12e 6y ago
  Oh, I hate xml as a config language. But at least it has support for comments - unlike json (hacks not withstanding).
  • dehrmann 6y ago
    Thinking out loud... The problem with XML is mostly syntactical: it's not always clear if something should be a node or an attribute, and it doesn't have actual lists, maps, or scalar types. JSON has more structural issues: it can be too terse, so if you're not careful with naming fields, it can be really hard to tell what type of object something is, and for polymorphic lists, you're out of luck.
• pjmlp 6y ago
  Schema validation, proper types, comments, IDE completion support, and no significant white spaces, just what I ordered.