If you haven't heard of XML yet, you must be living under a rock! -
Programming in the .NET Environment
Taken from the fortunes file. I guess I must be living under a rock,
but I don't know what xml is, or pragmatically, what is it for.
Please, understand that I'm not trying to start a flame war i
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 9:19 AM, hugo rivera wrote:
> If you haven't heard of XML yet, you must be living under a rock! -
> Programming in the .NET Environment
> Taken from the fortunes file. I guess I must be living under a rock,
> but I don't know what xml is, or pragmatically, what is it for.
On 28 Jun 2010, at 17:19, hugo rivera wrote:
If you haven't heard of XML yet, you must be living under a rock! -
Programming in the .NET Environment
Taken from the fortunes file. I guess I must be living under a rock,
but I don't know what xml is, or pragmatically, what is it for.
Please, unde
"The essence of XML is this: the problem it solves is not hard, and it
does not solve the problem well." -- Phil Wadler, POPL 2003
-rob
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Rob Pike wrote:
> "The essence of XML is this: the problem it solves is not hard, and it
> does not solve the problem well." -- Phil Wadler, POPL 2003
>
> -rob
>
>
I love Wadler's work.
I should add that Russ's post is on point, Wadler's slightly off. I
would extend it as "The essence of XML is this: the problem it solves
is not hard, it does not solve the problem well, and anyway it's not
the problem people think it solves."
-rob
On Mon Jun 28 14:56:12 EDT 2010, robp...@gmail.com wrote:
> I should add that Russ's post is on point, Wadler's slightly off. I
> would extend it as "The essence of XML is this: the problem it solves
> is not hard, it does not solve the problem well, and anyway it's not
> the problem people think
On 28 June 2010 15:06, erik quanstrom wrote:
> yet in that it does something, it does so vigorously and verbosly
> and does so less vexatiously than asn.1, which does solve the
> problem xml purports to solve.
>
> - erik
>
>
Was I supposed to hear that in my head as Hugo Weaving? Cuz' I did.
Now that I had a closer look to xml files, I think I get the main idea.
>From my point of view, xml doesn't seem so bad after all (please,
please, this is just an uninformed opinion) but perhaps in the future
I'll be able to see its defects.
--
Hugo
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:47 AM, hugo rivera wrote:
> Now that I had a closer look to xml files, I think I get the main idea.
> From my point of view, xml doesn't seem so bad after all (please,
> please, this is just an uninformed opinion) but perhaps in the future
> I'll be able to see its defec
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:25 AM, David Leimbach wrote:
>
> Eventually you'll find that the entire world became a nail for the XML
> hammer and that things like SOAP, XML-RPC, are just not very good due to the
> fact that sending XML documents on a wire for simple RPC calls is grossly
> inefficien
> To add to the madness you can write XML files that translate XML files to
> other files (possibly other XML files) in an XML defined language called
> XSLT. XSLT is a bit like writing in a functional programming language with
> the worst syntax possible :-).
>
> The reason I say "worst syntax po
On Jun 30, 2010, at 2:43 PM, ron minnich wrote:
as long as you don't care about the (observed) 100:1 ratio of XML glop
to data in, e.g., the Python XMLRPC stuff, it's great. Yep, I observed
that ratio when Xen made the cut to XML-RPC: 3000 bytes of RPC to send
30 bytes of data. It's impressive: g
On 30 June 2010 15:54, Pietro Gagliardi wrote:
> A friend on AIM who I showed this quote to suggested XML should drop named
> close tags as a solution: stuff
> "C and Ratfor programmers find BEGIN and END bulky compared to { and }." -
> bwk
>
The suggestion has come up 8000 times in as many foru
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Pietro Gagliardi wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2010, at 2:43 PM, ron minnich wrote:
>
> as long as you don't care about the (observed) 100:1 ratio of XML glop
> to data in, e.g., the Python XMLRPC stuff, it's great. Yep, I observed
> that ratio when Xen made the cut to XML-
> The suggestion has come up 8000 times in as many forums, to no avail.
>
> Supposedly, the excess verbosity makes it more readable/less error-prone.
to paraphrase, a sufficient amount of readable data is
as good as unreadable data.
- erik
If you gathered up a bunch of old, proven data representation methods,
packaged it as XML 2.0, formed an XML 2.0 consortium and put it out
there energetically with bullet points and with a straight face, people
would buy it.
No, listen, it's true, they would. The straight face part is import
On 30 Jun 2010, at 9:53 pm, Wes Kussmaul wrote:
If you gathered up a bunch of old, proven data representation
methods, packaged it as XML 2.0, formed an XML 2.0 consortium and
put it out there energetically with bullet points and with a
straight face, people would buy it.
No, listen, i
> I do wonder if this is what the Go authors are trying to do in a
> different area to xml; reintroduce good practice under new terminology.
I'd like to know which good practices Go is merely reintroducing.
The concurrency model, sure, but I believe the approaches to
interfaces and name visibility
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:12:00 PDT Russ Cox wrote:
> > I do wonder if this is what the Go authors are trying to do in a
> > different area to xml; reintroduce good practice under new terminology.
>
> I'd like to know which good practices Go is merely reintroducing.
> The concurrency model, sure, b
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:12:00 PDT Russ Cox wrote:
>> > I do wonder if this is what the Go authors are trying to do in a
>> > different area to xml; reintroduce good practice under new terminology.
>>
>> I'd like to know which good practices Go i
> `Interfaces', the way they are invariably implemented, don't cut it --
> too limiting and imposing.
I do not claim that Go's interfaces can match the type system of
Haskell but this sentence tells me you aren't very familiar with them.
They are not implemented, invariably or otherwise, like any
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:49:31 PDT Rob Pike wrote:
>
> I do not claim that Go's interfaces can match the type system of
> Haskell
Given that all variables have to be explicitly typed (as far
as I can remember), I thought it would be even easier to do
something like Haskell type classes! So if yo
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Rob Pike wrote:
>> `Interfaces', the way they are invariably implemented, don't cut it --
>> too limiting and imposing.
>
> I do not claim that Go's interfaces can match the type system of
> Haskell but this sentence tells me you aren't very familiar with them.
> T
On 1 July 2010 20:34, Jorden M wrote:
> Lack of polymorphism in the interfaces seems to limit
> the extent to which they can be compared to Haskell type classes, but
> it seems safe to say that they are definitely a subset.
it's not as safe as you think - that's not true. in some
ways, go's inter
There are many things I don't like about xml, and most have been mentioned.
There are several ideas around xml that I like. I self-describing aspect of
xml is convenient. The ability to represent structured data is great too, and
I like to be able to edit the data in a text editor and otherwis
26 matches
Mail list logo
