3 ms·

This is confusing because XML is the archetype of what I would consider unreadable. If I got a prompt in a programming language design workshop to intentionally

This is confusing because XML is the archetype of what I would consider unreadable. If I got a prompt in a programming language design workshop to intentionally design something unreadable for humans, I would start thinking about XML and see where it leads me. Can you name any language any more unreadable than XML to help me?

jimmaswell 4y ago
https://www.mssqltips.com/tipimages2/2899_img5.jpg https://www.mssqltips.com/tipimages2/2899_img5.jpg I look at this and I see a visually-well-organized hierarchy of objects with properties and children. It's a sideways tree diagram. I honestly don't get what's supposed to be unappealing about it. > Can you name any language any more unreadable than XML to help me? Most of the other markup languages depending on the usecase. The "redundant" tags everywhere like </Address> in XML are very helpful if you're in the weeds of a big document that's taller than your viewport - you still know exactly what you're looking at and where in the hierarchy you are, as opposed to JSON or YAML which I find much easier to get lost in. Anyone can pick up a (properly-named) XML document and tell what it means at a glance, but JSON is easily a mystery unless you know the implicit schema beforehand. Maybe there's some minor friction to get past looking at XML because it's a little visually busy before you learn how to parse it out? Is that all there is to it?
- lifehasleft 4y ago
  I understand where you’re coming from because it’s true XML is going to perform the functions required without all the problems implicit with YAML’s “readable” syntax… But I have worked with some very complex XML and I feel you’ve chosen a simpler to read example. I have seen very complicated XML from Microsoft’s own configurations that is so large, long, and complicated that it is very hard to follow

jimmaswell 4y ago

https://www.mssqltips.com/tipimages2/2899_img5.jpg https://www.mssqltips.com/tipimages2/2899_img5.jpg I look at this and I see a visually-well-organized hierarchy of objects with properties and children. It's a sideways tree diagram. I honestly don't get what's supposed to be unappealing about it. > Can you name any language any more unreadable than XML to help me? Most of the other markup languages depending on the usecase. The "redundant" tags everywhere like </Address> in XML are very helpful if you're in the weeds of a big document that's taller than your viewport - you still know exactly what you're looking at and where in the hierarchy you are, as opposed to JSON or YAML which I find much easier to get lost in. Anyone can pick up a (properly-named) XML document and tell what it means at a glance, but JSON is easily a mystery unless you know the implicit schema beforehand. Maybe there's some minor friction to get past looking at XML because it's a little visually busy before you learn how to parse it out? Is that all there is to it?

lifehasleft 4y ago
I understand where you’re coming from because it’s true XML is going to perform the functions required without all the problems implicit with YAML’s “readable” syntax… But I have worked with some very complex XML and I feel you’ve chosen a simpler to read example. I have seen very complicated XML from Microsoft’s own configurations that is so large, long, and complicated that it is very hard to follow