this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
1237 points (98.2% liked)
Programmer Humor
32710 readers
453 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
IMHO: XML is a file format, JSON is a data transfer format. Reinventing things like RSS or SVG to use JSON wouldn't be helpful, but using XML to communicate between your app's frontend and backend wouldn't be either.
Yeah, json is not a good config format. As much as xml is not. Please use something like YAML or TOML.
I never moved away from ini I've just been sititng back watching you all re-invent the wheel over and over and over and over and over.
It's a wheel, it's supposed to turn over and over and over ad infinitum!
/S (because it's big sarcasm instead of small.)
I wish more things used Nickel or Dhall for config. I don’t know why I wouldn’t want editor support for type information or the ability to make functions in my non-Turing-complete config to eliminate boilerplate on my end.
Of course you can use XML that way, but it is unnecessarily verbose and complex because you have to make decisions, like, whether to store things as attributes or as nested elements.
I stand by my statement that if you're saving things to a file you should probably use XML, if you're transferring data over a network you should probably use JSON.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
We were using XML for that before JSON.
Yes and it is a good thing we don't anymore.
Why? JSON hasn't given us anything XML hasn't, except maybe a bit of terseness.
I do agree SOAP is a bit over engineered, though, but that's not the fault of XML.
XML is much more annoying to read/write by hand
As a pentester, if I see XML in HTTP I start crying.
That's my biggest peev about JSON actually. No comments!! WTH!
On one hand I agree, on the other hand I just know that some people would immediately abuse it and put relevant data into comments.
do they do that in xml? never seen that
I have actually seen it in an XML file in the wild. Never quite understood why they did it. Anything they encoded into there, they could have just added a node for.
But it was an XML format that was widely used in a big company, so presumably somewhere someone wrote a shitty XML parser that can't deal with additional nodes. Or they were just scared of touching the existing structure, I don't know.
This is why there are none, but I still think it's dumb. Parsers can't see comments anyways.
That's assuming people actually use a parser and don't build their own "parser" to read values manually.
And before anyone asks: Yes, I've known people who did exactly that and to this day I'm still traumatized by that discovery.
But yes, comments would've been nice.
A tool being flexible enough that a shitty dev can use it to make something shitty isn't a poor reflection on the tool.
There's comments in the specs and a bunch of parsers that actually inore //
json spec draft 7
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Yes, it's a field. Specifically, a field containing human-readable information about what is going on in adjacent fields, much like a comment. I see no issue with putting such information in a json file.
As for "you don't comment by putting information in variables": In Python, your objects have the
__doc__attribute, which is specifically used for this purpose.Please don't. If you need something like json but with comments, then use YAML or TOML. Those formats are designed to be human-readable by default, json is better suited for interchanging information between different pieces of software. And if you really need comments inside JSON, then find a parser that supports
//or/* */syntax.And there are some truly magic tools.
XSDs are far from perfect, but waaay more powerful than json schema.
XSLT has its problems, but completely transforming a document to a completely different structure with just a bit of text is awesome. I had to rewrite a relatively simple XSLT in Java and it was something like 10 times more lines.
And don't forget about namespaces. Look at formats like HAL and ODATA that try to add HATEOAS onto JSON.
Did you write your transform logic ground-up or use a third-party library? I'm not a Java dev, but I feel like someone has to have already solved this problem in pretty much every language anyone actually uses.
People may hate on SOAP but I've never had issues with setting up a SOAP client
I came into the industry right when XML fever had peaked as was beginning to fall back. But in MS land, it never really went away, just being slowly cannibalize by JSON.
You're right though, there was some cool stuff being done with xml when it was assumed that it would be the future of all data formats. Being able to apply standard tools like XLT transforms, XSS styling, schemas to validate, and XPath to search/query and you had some very powerful generic tools.
JSON has barely caught up to that with schemes and transforms. JQ lets you query json but I don't really find it more readable or usable than XPath. I'm sure something like XLT exists, but there's no standardization or attempt to rally around shared tools like with XML.
That to me is the saddest thing. VC/MBA-backed companies have driven everyone into the worst cases of NIHS ever. Now there's no standards, no attempts to share work or unify around reliable technology. Its every company for themselves and getting other people suckered into using (and freely maintaining) your tools as a prelude to locking them into your ecosystem is the norm now.
Commented JSON is a thing
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
That's because whoever wrote the spec missed the fucking plot. It's not called C# Object Notation.