Bob La Quey wrote:
They all differ slightly and therein lies the problem. XML may be bloated. But is far better standardized than any of (note several subtly different) examples given.
A lot of the lisp guys have been pondering how similar XML is to lisp and how XSL and other things are functional languages and how Lisp is so good at parsing XML since recursion is a natural solution for it etc. I was once annoyed by XML but nowadays I am wondering if there simply isn't something I'm missing.
It does seem clear to me that you shouldn't be writing your own config file parser. That usually means either writing the config file in the programming language itself (perl, python, etc) or doing it in XML.
One thing I have learned from playing with emacs is that it makes some things a lot easier when your editor understands what it is that you are editing. When you talk about programming in Lisp one of the things people who don't know lisp always mention is how annoying so many parenthesis must be. Little do they realize that when you code it in emacs the parens aren't a problem at all. And I imagine the same is true for XML. I code all of my XHTML in emacs now because it keeps track of indentation, closing tags, etc.
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
