3 ms·
> The syntax was a bigger problem than Lisp's syntax, though. Yeah. XML and S expressions are pretty close to functionally equivalent. But once you've seen S
by AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> The syntax was a bigger problem than Lisp's syntax, though.
Yeah. XML and S expressions are pretty close to functionally equivalent. But once you've seen S expressions, XML is disgustingly clumsy.
- nine_k 2y agoSGML was intended for sparse markup in mostly plaintext files. From it grew HTML that is markup-heavy, and XML which is often 100% markup. What made sense for rare markup nodes became... suboptimal when applied in a very different role.
- jll29 2y ago1. GML => SGML => XML 2. rm * 3. JSON 4. rm -rf /
- pfdietz 2y ago"Any data can be turned into Big Data by encoding it in XML."
- fuzztester 2y agoWow. Also: XML: eXtremely Murky Language or Mindblowing
- chubot 2y agoThey have a different model -- one is better for documents, and one is better for programs/data XML and HTML are attributed text, while S-expressions are more like a homogeneous tree If you have more text than metadata, then they are more natural than S-expressions e.g. The closing </p> may seem redundant, until you have big paragraphs of free form text, which you generally don't in programs