4 ms·

XML is a horrendous technology. JSON was a much better choice. YAML would have been better still (it's more human readable), but both beat XML hands down in an

XML is a horrendous technology. JSON was a much better choice. YAML would have been better still (it's more human readable), but both beat XML hands down in any situation.

bphogan 12y ago
XML was horrible for data interchange, configuration, and all the other crap people used it for. It's one of the best tools for marking up content. It's a Markup Language! If you've never used XSLT you really should look at what it can do. Because I can transform an XML resume into something gorgeous without writing too much programming logic. It's the reason so many technical book publishers use XML. Easy to transform content while also describing that content.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  It is horrible for markup too. It is far, far, far too complex and far more verbose than it needs to be. These are the hallmarks of a bad language (or metalanguage). It is absurdly popular in bureaucratic environments. Bureaucrats adore its complex rules, ability to create arcane standards and illusion of openness. It's also good for job security. However, none of that bodes well for the rest of us. I have used XSLT and I am absolutely appalled that something like that can even exist. It's actually worse than XML. It is a turing complete language (this means that you can make it as complex as you like, and boy oh boy does THAT happen), but its readability is AWFUL. There is a reason we have other general purpose languages turing complete like python or javascript or even java and that is because, while they may have some warts, they have had a lot more thought put into them in order to help make them more consistent, better structured and readable than similarly committee-designed / thrown together languages like XSLT. I can use a normal programming language transform a JSON resume into something gorgeous and I GUARANTEE it will be lot easier to read and modify than your XSLT equivalent. Sorry to rain on your parade, but it's true.
  - xienze 12y ago
    > It is horrible for markup too. It is far, far, far too complex and far more verbose than it needs to be. Oh stop. XML syntax is freaking simple. <tag>content</tag>, <tag><child>...</child>...</tag>, or <tag attribute="value" ...></tag>. Toss in namespaces for composing other formats _if need be_ (and you don't have to use them). And... you're done for 99.9% of any use case you can think of. You have to repeat yourself when you close a tag. Whoopdedoo. Any decent editor will close them for you anyway. I think the "XML sucks" crowd are conflating very complex XML _formats_ with XML _itself_ and deciding that XML is ridiculously complex and verbose because e.g., SOAP is complex and verbose. Just curious, do you hate HTML for similar reasons as well?
    - mindcrime 12y ago
      I have to agree. XML can be complicated, or can at least look complicated when using lots of namespaces and what-not, but for most purposes it's dead simple and about as easy to understand as anything else. Truth be told, I find XML easier to read than JSON in many cases. shrug
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      You've forgotten: * DOCTYPE * Namespaces and namespace collision handling. * The likelihood that you will receive badly formed XML and be forced to parse it anyway. * The multiple different ways of escaping characters. * Language identification ...I could go on. Oh, and your parser has to handle ALL of this. It's no good assuming that "since the basics are fairly basic it doesn't matter". It doesn't matter only when you're generating XML, but somebody SOMEWHERE is going to have to consume it. Wanna know why it's typically possible to blow up an XML parser with a memory leak or a buffer overflow but not a JSON parser? This complexity is why. Just using it creates an increased attack surface for your internet facing API. >Just curious, do you hate HTML for similar reasons as well? I'm not its biggest fan, and I feel like it could have been done a lot better. However, A) there isn't much alternative so bitching about it it somewhat pointless and B) at least I never have parse it (want an exercise in frustration some time? try doing THAT...).
      - 12y ago

XML is a horrendous technology. JSON was a much better choice. YAML would have been better still (it's more human readable), but both beat XML hands down in any situation.

bphogan 12y ago

XML was horrible for data interchange, configuration, and all the other crap people used it for. It's one of the best tools for marking up content. It's a Markup Language! If you've never used XSLT you really should look at what it can do. Because I can transform an XML resume into something gorgeous without writing too much programming logic. It's the reason so many technical book publishers use XML. Easy to transform content while also describing that content.

crdoconnor 12y ago
It is horrible for markup too. It is far, far, far too complex and far more verbose than it needs to be. These are the hallmarks of a bad language (or metalanguage). It is absurdly popular in bureaucratic environments. Bureaucrats adore its complex rules, ability to create arcane standards and illusion of openness. It's also good for job security. However, none of that bodes well for the rest of us. I have used XSLT and I am absolutely appalled that something like that can even exist. It's actually worse than XML. It is a turing complete language (this means that you can make it as complex as you like, and boy oh boy does THAT happen), but its readability is AWFUL. There is a reason we have other general purpose languages turing complete like python or javascript or even java and that is because, while they may have some warts, they have had a lot more thought put into them in order to help make them more consistent, better structured and readable than similarly committee-designed / thrown together languages like XSLT. I can use a normal programming language transform a JSON resume into something gorgeous and I GUARANTEE it will be lot easier to read and modify than your XSLT equivalent. Sorry to rain on your parade, but it's true.
- xienze 12y ago
  > It is horrible for markup too. It is far, far, far too complex and far more verbose than it needs to be. Oh stop. XML syntax is freaking simple. <tag>content</tag>, <tag><child>...</child>...</tag>, or <tag attribute="value" ...></tag>. Toss in namespaces for composing other formats _if need be_ (and you don't have to use them). And... you're done for 99.9% of any use case you can think of. You have to repeat yourself when you close a tag. Whoopdedoo. Any decent editor will close them for you anyway. I think the "XML sucks" crowd are conflating very complex XML _formats_ with XML _itself_ and deciding that XML is ridiculously complex and verbose because e.g., SOAP is complex and verbose. Just curious, do you hate HTML for similar reasons as well?
  - mindcrime 12y ago
    I have to agree. XML can be complicated, or can at least look complicated when using lots of namespaces and what-not, but for most purposes it's dead simple and about as easy to understand as anything else. Truth be told, I find XML easier to read than JSON in many cases. shrug
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    You've forgotten: * DOCTYPE * Namespaces and namespace collision handling. * The likelihood that you will receive badly formed XML and be forced to parse it anyway. * The multiple different ways of escaping characters. * Language identification ...I could go on. Oh, and your parser has to handle ALL of this. It's no good assuming that "since the basics are fairly basic it doesn't matter". It doesn't matter only when you're generating XML, but somebody SOMEWHERE is going to have to consume it. Wanna know why it's typically possible to blow up an XML parser with a memory leak or a buffer overflow but not a JSON parser? This complexity is why. Just using it creates an increased attack surface for your internet facing API. >Just curious, do you hate HTML for similar reasons as well? I'm not its biggest fan, and I feel like it could have been done a lot better. However, A) there isn't much alternative so bitching about it it somewhat pointless and B) at least I never have parse it (want an exercise in frustration some time? try doing THAT...).
    - 12y ago