4 ms·

I still can't believe that we (as a profession) kinda traded away schemas, namespaces, comments, sanity and well defined dates basically because some kids were

by yread 3y ago

I still can't believe that we (as a profession) kinda traded away schemas, namespaces, comments, sanity and well defined dates basically because some kids were too cool to write out closing tags. My early 20s teammate now closes blocks with } //for in his JS. That's even worse than XML!

vbezhenar 3y ago
JSON has schemas. Namespaces are simple, just add something like "namespace": "mynamespace" if you really need it. Comments are not really needed for machine readable formats and many JSON parsers allow comments if you need it for configs, so that's hardly an issue. Well defined dates are strings in ISO8601 format. It's not standardized with JSON, but not an issue I encounter on practice.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  JSON itself doesn't have support for scheme of comments as far as I'm aware. Both are supported by individual rolls building on top of JSON rather than those features being part of the JSON spec. Whether that stiffener matters to someone is up them, but that difference is what many comments on this thread are pointing out with regards to us having spent a decade rebuild many features of XML back into JSON.
  - vbezhenar 3y ago
    XML does not have support for schemas either. XML Schemas is a separate spec (and actually not the only one, there were few competing ones). I'd use JSON schema over XML schema any day. And I read and wrote many XML schemas and still do sometimes. JSON schema actually built by sane people. If that required a decade, so be it.
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      Oh that's interesting, I always thought schema names pacing was a part of the XML spec, learned something new!
Devasta 3y ago
Its incredible to look back at the arguments against XML and XHTML and realise just how poorly thought out they were. Now, we've wasted the past few decades re-implementing everything that XML provided, but worse, and will spend the next few decades doing that all over again.
- 0x445442 3y ago
  99% of the arguments in this industry are straw men or false equivalencies back by nothing but assertions and gut feel. There is little engineering in the field.
PurpleRamen 3y ago
That's all fancy fluff. It's just optional benefit, we don't need all that in most cases. So if we add the flaws of XML into the evaluation, it naturally loses in most use cases.
papruapap 3y ago
Personally I just miss Dates. Even if I dont really like not having comments, it is probably for the best, force software to have proper documentation.
pradn 3y ago
Maybe we need a Kotlin for XML. I mean a JSON-like, simple syntax without some of the verbosity of XML.

by yread 3y ago

vbezhenar 3y ago

JSON has schemas. Namespaces are simple, just add something like "namespace": "mynamespace" if you really need it. Comments are not really needed for machine readable formats and many JSON parsers allow comments if you need it for configs, so that's hardly an issue. Well defined dates are strings in ISO8601 format. It's not standardized with JSON, but not an issue I encounter on practice.

flagrant_taco 3y ago
JSON itself doesn't have support for scheme of comments as far as I'm aware. Both are supported by individual rolls building on top of JSON rather than those features being part of the JSON spec. Whether that stiffener matters to someone is up them, but that difference is what many comments on this thread are pointing out with regards to us having spent a decade rebuild many features of XML back into JSON.
- vbezhenar 3y ago
  XML does not have support for schemas either. XML Schemas is a separate spec (and actually not the only one, there were few competing ones). I'd use JSON schema over XML schema any day. And I read and wrote many XML schemas and still do sometimes. JSON schema actually built by sane people. If that required a decade, so be it.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    Oh that's interesting, I always thought schema names pacing was a part of the XML spec, learned something new!

Devasta 3y ago

Its incredible to look back at the arguments against XML and XHTML and realise just how poorly thought out they were. Now, we've wasted the past few decades re-implementing everything that XML provided, but worse, and will spend the next few decades doing that all over again.

0x445442 3y ago
99% of the arguments in this industry are straw men or false equivalencies back by nothing but assertions and gut feel. There is little engineering in the field.

PurpleRamen 3y ago

That's all fancy fluff. It's just optional benefit, we don't need all that in most cases. So if we add the flaws of XML into the evaluation, it naturally loses in most use cases.

papruapap 3y ago

Personally I just miss Dates. Even if I dont really like not having comments, it is probably for the best, force software to have proper documentation.

pradn 3y ago

Maybe we need a Kotlin for XML. I mean a JSON-like, simple syntax without some of the verbosity of XML.