4 ms·
Are you sure that's true? As you say, look at the "standard" API for XML parsing: a complete disaster. Dates, similar. Logging was slightly less disastrous b
by carsongross 12y ago
Are you sure that's true? As you say, look at the "standard" API for XML parsing: a complete disaster. Dates, similar. Logging was slightly less disastrous because they took so much from Log4j, but they still made it unwieldy enough that the log4j guys ended up writing an API on top of that which everyone uses.
Now, props where props are due: Sun crushed the collections APIs compared to other languages at the time. And that more than makes up for everything else.
But I see little evidence that standardizing JSON parsing will improve things.
- mmastrac 12y agoI'll counter that with saying that j.u.l is not actually that bad, IMO, although I might be the only one in the world that thinks that. I always just choose j.u.l in my projects because it works well-enough. I just shim anything with slf4j if it speaks log4j or commons-logging (shudder). Perhaps Sun should have just adopted slf4j and a simple console-logging stub, but I don't think j.u.l is really any worse than the alternatives -- only a different implementation. Now date APIs: those do suck, but I think the new Date JSR will finally get things to a place where we can use Java Dates rather than Joda.
- wlievens 12y agoXML parsers are so complicated because XML and the DOM are more complicated. A json parser can be simpler.