3 ms·

XML is hard to read and write for humans and not efficient for machines, while the tools are complex. The benefits mentioned above are due to schemas, and not

XML is hard to read and write for humans and not efficient for machines, while the tools are complex. The benefits mentioned above are due to schemas, and not the serialization format or tool scope, all of which could be improved independently. But even if an excellent combo dropped from the sky getting everyone to use it would be very hard due to inertia. That said, some folks with demanding needs use protocol buffers or thrift, etc. And have for a while.

ryukoposting 3y ago
Don't get me wrong, both formats have their place. I personally find neither to be terribly difficult to read or write, but maybe that's just me. Having used XSD and JSON schema, XSD is a far more complete solution that takes advantage if XML's more sophisticated syntax. I'm not sure how you'd make JSON Schema more expressive without making it hideously difficult to use. I'm not advocating for universal XML use, nor am I advocating for universal JSON use. I'm advocating for standing back and asking yourself "what am I trying to accomplish?" then choosing the right tool for the job. As for protobuf: I've seen entire companies built on it. It's amazing what your engineers can do when they don't spend half their time twiddling bits or arguing about data formats. It's a godsend for embedded developers (like me), because JSON, XML, et al are non-starters in that space.
- mixmastamyk 3y ago
  If you’re a developer type, they aren’t too bad. But IT and even some business folks could be trusted with editing ini files. Others won’t even try to edit xml/json and constitute the great majority of humans. json is better but the lack of trailing commas dooms it as a more general format.
Exoristos 3y ago
The tools like XSLT and Xpath are actually very satisfying to use and astoundingly capable, especially when streaming. However, they require deeper learning than most busy Web devs may be comfortable with.

ryukoposting 3y ago

Don't get me wrong, both formats have their place. I personally find neither to be terribly difficult to read or write, but maybe that's just me. Having used XSD and JSON schema, XSD is a far more complete solution that takes advantage if XML's more sophisticated syntax. I'm not sure how you'd make JSON Schema more expressive without making it hideously difficult to use. I'm not advocating for universal XML use, nor am I advocating for universal JSON use. I'm advocating for standing back and asking yourself "what am I trying to accomplish?" then choosing the right tool for the job. As for protobuf: I've seen entire companies built on it. It's amazing what your engineers can do when they don't spend half their time twiddling bits or arguing about data formats. It's a godsend for embedded developers (like me), because JSON, XML, et al are non-starters in that space.

mixmastamyk 3y ago
If you’re a developer type, they aren’t too bad. But IT and even some business folks could be trusted with editing ini files. Others won’t even try to edit xml/json and constitute the great majority of humans. json is better but the lack of trailing commas dooms it as a more general format.

Exoristos 3y ago

The tools like XSLT and Xpath are actually very satisfying to use and astoundingly capable, especially when streaming. However, they require deeper learning than most busy Web devs may be comfortable with.