3 ms·

oh look, the internet denizen was able to weave their way through a rationalization, that's certainly never been done before! What makes it even more absurd is

oh look, the internet denizen was able to weave their way through a rationalization, that's certainly never been done before! What makes it even more absurd is that we do, in fact, have binary serialization protocols and they're very popular especially amongst companies dealing with scale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap%27n_Proto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap%27n_Proto > Values in Cap'n Proto messages are represented in binary, as opposed to text encoding used by "human-readable" formats such as JSON or XML. Cap'n Proto tries to make the storage/network protocol appropriate as an in-memory format, so that no translation step is needed when reading data into memory or writing data out of memory. --- But that's actually the fucking point, serialization only looks the same as configuration if you've gone too high up the abstraction ladder and lost your perspective and that _is_ the point of TFA. At some point you need to stop and ask if what you're doing is really the right approach. You've destroyed your _own_ point with your long-winded, weaving, rationalization. and to top it all off, you've strawmanned a point I've clarified already. It makes you look like an asshole. I've never claimed ini works well for complex configuration, I said the opposite in fact.

smaudet 3y ago
> oh look, the internet denizen was able to weave their way through a rationalization, that's certainly never been done before! Yes, I gathered a couple replies ago you weren't interested in meaningful discussion...and probably hadn't even read anything I'd said. > You've destroyed your _own_ point What point? I asked you a question. You continually divert and misdirect. Now the only point of contention I have left with you: Configuration and Serialization are the same thing, at the format layer. You mumble some nonsense about an abstraction ladder, but the truth is you're climbing it. The difference between only appears at higher levels of abstraction. > I've never claimed ini works well for complex configuration And yet you never made a claim about what works well. This is precisely the reason JSON/YAML are popular, and most people ditched INI, people don't care about your higher order abstraction, they just want a format that gets the job done, and doesn't get in your way.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  > And yet you never made a claim about what works well. I certainly did and I also clarified it a second time. I'm not doing it a 3rd time, you can re-read this chain. > Configuration and Serialization are the same thing, at the format layer. CSAM and the text of the bible are the same thing at the storage layer. My cats and I are the same thing at the atom layer. And you say this inane thing unironically. Let me quote an earlier comment I made > As Joel Spoelsky said years ago, if you abstract far enough up everything starts to look the same but that doesn't make it so stop being an architecture astronaut. But this just takes the cake. > they [people] just want a format that gets the job done, and doesn't get in your way. TFA is very clearly stating that if you're having to template it, it's not getting the job done.
  - smaudet 3y ago
    You provided a nonsensical answer. And have since insisted on spouting nonsense. I have nothing further to say on the matter, clearly I'm conversing with a brick.

smaudet 3y ago

> oh look, the internet denizen was able to weave their way through a rationalization, that's certainly never been done before! Yes, I gathered a couple replies ago you weren't interested in meaningful discussion...and probably hadn't even read anything I'd said. > You've destroyed your _own_ point What point? I asked you a question. You continually divert and misdirect. Now the only point of contention I have left with you: Configuration and Serialization are the same thing, at the format layer. You mumble some nonsense about an abstraction ladder, but the truth is you're climbing it. The difference between only appears at higher levels of abstraction. > I've never claimed ini works well for complex configuration And yet you never made a claim about what works well. This is precisely the reason JSON/YAML are popular, and most people ditched INI, people don't care about your higher order abstraction, they just want a format that gets the job done, and doesn't get in your way.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
> And yet you never made a claim about what works well. I certainly did and I also clarified it a second time. I'm not doing it a 3rd time, you can re-read this chain. > Configuration and Serialization are the same thing, at the format layer. CSAM and the text of the bible are the same thing at the storage layer. My cats and I are the same thing at the atom layer. And you say this inane thing unironically. Let me quote an earlier comment I made > As Joel Spoelsky said years ago, if you abstract far enough up everything starts to look the same but that doesn't make it so stop being an architecture astronaut. But this just takes the cake. > they [people] just want a format that gets the job done, and doesn't get in your way. TFA is very clearly stating that if you're having to template it, it's not getting the job done.
- smaudet 3y ago
  You provided a nonsensical answer. And have since insisted on spouting nonsense. I have nothing further to say on the matter, clearly I'm conversing with a brick.