|
tiny bug childe have you rid yourself of tbi yet?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 12:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
why do plangers think xml is bad?? whenever i needed to store config or whatev i just use xml and tinyxml/etc.. and BAM!! it's done can someone xplain to me why ppl think xml is bad thank you and dog bless
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
Shinku ABOOKEN posted:why do plangers think xml is bad?? it takes up so much space
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Bloody posted:it takes up so much space does your editor not support collapsing regions + auto tag insertion
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
xml is good if you don't plan on reading or editing it yourself it's bad if you do if you ever find yourself actually doing the latter tho then you're probably a lovely programmer for not ensuring that you do not have to do it
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:does your editor not support collapsing regions + auto tag insertion oh no it does this is just what idiot plangers complain about
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
whoops sry
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
OBAMA BIN LinkedIn posted:xml is good if you don't plan on reading or editing it yourself
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
xml rules
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
OBAMA BIN LinkedIn posted:xml is good if you don't plan on reading or editing it yourself yep, xml is a sorta ok serialization format for computers to read and write and occasionally for humans to inspect, and rarely for humans to edit or write. (i.e there is a reason xslt isn't that popular) the well formed part makes it awkward for humans to write well, including recalling escape characters and different escaping rules depending on context. the schemas are ok, but many of the tools that claim to support them have weird limitations, so it sorts ended up being abandoned or not so useful to be worth the effort. (hi mssql!) on the plus side it actually supports utf-8, and xpath is a wonderful, wonderful thing. on the massive, parsing xml is chunky, complex and hard, so hard in fact there are a plethora of security issues, like denial of service attacks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
tl;dr xml is ok for trusted interchange and more platform neutral formats, xpath owns, but security and editing are way harder
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
this tbc tef shaggar av exchange is getting way out of hand
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
OBAMA BIN LinkedIn posted:this tbc tef shaggar av exchange is getting way out of hand yeah i thought i was about to agree with tbc and i felt fear
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:yeah i thought i was about to agree with tbc and i felt fear  Avoid Symmetry, Allow Complexity, Introduce Terror w o w s o s a t a n l f e s r u o y e z i n a m u h e d u s e p h p i n s t a l l g e n t o o h a i l s a t a n
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
We needed something to build wireless configs out of and I built a pretty sweet structure that played nicely with perl's XML implementation as that's all we would be using, and it works flawlessly and ive gotten kudos for it from both technical and financial stakeholders soooo works4me
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
tef posted:on the massive, parsing xml is chunky, complex and hard, so hard in fact there are a plethora of security issues, like denial of service attacks. the best part is there's a bunch of obscure xml features which the standard testcase requires you to support but nobody ever uses and have security issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion_laughs
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Never use an unknown dtd
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
tef posted:yep, xml is a sorta ok serialization format for computers to read and write and occasionally for humans to inspect, and rarely for humans to edit or write. (i.e there is a reason xslt isn't that popular) luckily, every language worth using has an xml parser already so you don't have to worry about it. plus many now disable features that aren't gonna be used by default to help limit exposure to dos attacks. and if you're using soap and wcf/cxf they handle all the parser configs as well so you don't need to worry about anything. its only when you start trying to re-solve those problems that you need to worry about all the edge cases. just let the people who already did it handle it for you. also xml with schema is very easy to write cause editors will auto complete and validate everything for you while you type. the xml datatype in mssql is kind of a hack tho. people kept storing their xml in blob/text/varchar or w/e and then wrote their own udfs to parse it so Microsoft gave them a datatype + tools to prevent the security and performance problems you get from bespoke implementations. using it to store xml that you may want to be able to poke at w/ sql for an export or maybe some custom reporting is ok, but using it as sort of a dynamic column store should be a hanging offense. for the few downsides it has and the lack of any real competitor, xml is still the best for the majority of serialization needs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:for the few downsides it has and the lack of any real competitor, xml is still the best for the majority of serialization needs. this nobody really loves xml in its current form but there is no viable alternative. people who pitch json or yaml as alternatives to xml have failed to understand what xml does
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
please inform my scrub brains, i have only used xml in situations where json would have also worked, wat can it do that json cannot
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
Tag names
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Socracheese posted:please inform my scrub brains, i have only used xml in situations where json would have also worked, wat can it do that json cannot schemas, validation, interoperability
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
xml does something that everyone needs it and it doesnt really do it well but not badly enough that people bother using something better if you do small poo poo like some configuration files or serializing a few things its ok. if xml is used for instance as a file format to describe (during development) all the objects making up a large video game's open world and perforce takes one hour to get the latest version of the data and the game take 5 minutes to load you kind of wish a less wasteful format like json had been used re: schemas you can do schemas in json too in fact, plot twist: you can even do schema validation on plain text. it's called a "parser" and the schema is called a "grammar". thats another thing with xml, people seem to literally believe that you can't do cool data manipulation on structured data represented in any other way than tags in angle brackets
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
i did json schema validation once but it was one of those things where you don't rly know what schemas will be harder to validate or maybe you do but I didn't care at the time because we decided it was too expensive anyway
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
theres no such thing as json schema only custom instructions for custom parsers. xml schema is a defined standard
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
we had this discussion earlier, like 100 pages ago. i'm just gonna give the main points here
serialisation and deserialisation is one of those things people like to pretend is easy but it's not
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
having a well-specified standard means that when i want to interoperate with a french mainframe, an american minicomputer from the 1970s, and a japanese warehouse running Windows, i'm gonna use xml i really don't want to hack up my own agreed standard around french-codepage EBCDIC and windows shift-jis json
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Socracheese posted:please inform my scrub brains, i have only used xml in situations where json would have also worked, wat can it do that json cannot this was me as well so thanks for these posts about why xml owns
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:having a well-specified standard means that when i want to interoperate with a french mainframe, an american minicomputer from the 1970s, and a warehouse running Windows, i'm gonna use xml ah yeah clearly a typical day-to-day use case for most people
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
yeah that's kind of the whole point of serialization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:yeah that's kind of the whole point of serialization. yeah you clearly never need serialization in a context that doesnt involve heterogenous systems
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
i agree with you guys. xml is only better when you have to work with dumb stuff that doesn't parse json right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
so basically the only reason xml is better than json is because json is a lovely standard?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Zlodo posted:ah yeah clearly a typical day-to-day use case for most people yes it is a completely typical day-to-day use case or have you never shopped in a retail store or driven a car or used a product manufactured in a country other than the u.s. most code in the world isn't consumer-facing webapps written by startup wunderkinds. it's awful vile data processing to manage business processes
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Socracheese posted:so basically the only reason xml is better than json is because json is a lovely standard? yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
so a guy at work was unironically pushing for us to switch our javascript to dart. looking at the wiki page it doesn't look terrible if not very exciting, basically like the web version of go. has anybody actually used it or looked at it or given a poo poo about it? or is it just gwt 2.0?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Zlodo posted:yeah you clearly never need serialization in a context that doesnt involve heterogenous systems in that case a custom binary format would be faster
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:yes it is a completely typical day-to-day use case i don't remember having to personally deal with data serialization and validation last time I shopped at a store, drove my car or used a product??? I think you might be doing those things wrong
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:in that case a custom binary format would be faster shaggertef was right
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
Zlodo posted:shaggertef was right
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:18
|
|
