"Kevin Cox" <kevincox...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.1385.1333660352.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > On Apr 5, 2012 5:04 PM, "Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote >> >> [...] > > I for one, absolutely love the way you think.
Really? That's pretty uncommon ;) Most people usually just think I'm nuts! > But, what is wrong with xml when used correctly. > Well, it's technically usable, but it's overrated: It's overly-verbose and over-engineered. It seems simple at a glance, and it really *should* be, and *could* have been, but there's a lot of unnecessary complications if you really dig into *proper* XML. I mean heck, just look at the spec: I know formal standards naturally tend to be big and pedantic, but for something as conceptually simple as XML appears to be, it's waaay out of control. Even as a big super-formal standard, XML *still* shouldn't be *that* complex. JSON is somewhat better, and YAML better still. But protocol buffers are vastly superior IMO.