Slashdot Mirror

You're absolutly right XML does not bring any demonstable benefit, although I'm sure the author can fabricate some reasons to prove his point, the real reason is becuase everyone else is doing and he thinks XML is cool. This artical here really says it all: http://xmlsucks.org/but_you_have_to_use_it_anyway/ does-xml-suck.html

I like both Lisp and XML, and the way I use XML is deeply influences by Lisp. I'd rather be using Lisp, but XML (and JavaScript and Flash) are ubiquitous and well supported, so I'd be a fool to try to reinvent those wheels instead of learning to live with what we have and improving on it.

There's an interesting discussion of Lisp -vs- XML. Some people think Xml is a good copy Of Lisp S-Expressions, and other people think Xml is a poor copy Of Lisp S-Expressions.

"Think of XML as Lisp for COBOL programmers." (Tony-A on slashdot)

"S-expressions are a representation, XML is a career path." -- WardCunningham (oopsla '03)

The ExtensibleMarkupLanguage is a poor copy of EssExpressions.

XML made the worst part of sexprs worse, by introducing lousy syntax. Then it failed to really capture the strengths of sexprs. Less for more cost, what a deal.

See http://xmlsucks.org/ or http://xmlsucks.org/but_you_have_to_use_it_anyway/

-Don

I like both Lisp and XML, and the way I use XML is deeply influences by Lisp. I'd rather be using Lisp, but XML (and JavaScript and Flash) are ubiquitous and well supported, so I'd be a fool to try to reinvent those wheels instead of learning to live with what we have and improving on it.

There's an interesting discussion of Lisp -vs- XML. Some people think Xml is a good copy Of Lisp S-Expressions, and other people think Xml is a poor copy Of Lisp S-Expressions.

"Think of XML as Lisp for COBOL programmers." (Tony-A on slashdot)

"S-expressions are a representation, XML is a career path." -- WardCunningham (oopsla '03)

The ExtensibleMarkupLanguage is a poor copy of EssExpressions.

XML made the worst part of sexprs worse, by introducing lousy syntax. Then it failed to really capture the strengths of sexprs. Less for more cost, what a deal.

See http://xmlsucks.org/ or http://xmlsucks.org/but_you_have_to_use_it_anyway/

-Don

Yeah, since xml is so great and we are not creative enough to develop a better format than xml or makefiles.

>So, XML is the "standard to end all standards, the way in which every
>single application can communicate with every other application from
>now till the end of time"
Well, many people thinks so. But XML sucks in many of its current use.

I don't think this article is a troll. I think its just sadly misguided. I appreciate much of the sentiment though: for the average computer user (who is not technically inclined) the variety of choices offered by OSS is intimidating, and the perceived (or actual) poor quality (or state of completion) of much of this software is effecting efforts to bring OSS to the masses.

This is, however, not the fault of developers. OSS is doing what it was always intended to do, and doing it better than ever. Developers are encouraged to experiment, build and contribute, in whatever way they like. The fault lies in the presentation of OSS software by distributors and major hosting sites, for example RedHat and SourceForge.

RedHat comes on 4 CDs. A first-time user is given more than ample opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot with options, and to choose to use software that is "sub-standard" by general commercial standards. This makes the software look bad, and that reflects on OSS as a whole.

SourceForge and FreshMeat, in searching and browsing, do not by default filter out pre-release software. Worse (IMHO) they do not have a facility to rate software (as is common on shareware sites). That makes it difficult to chose a stable, functional and quality piece of software for a particular purpose. The filtering mechanisms (other than rating) exist, but are not newbie-proof by default.

The message here is that OSS needs to prevent a user- or market-friendly outward appearance, instead of defaulting to hard-core developer modes.

To address two particular issues in the article to which I take exception:

Why gTk? Qt is older and more complete, Wx beats Qt in maturity and comes close to matching it in functionality. Wx also supports many more platforms than gTk, making it far more suitable for cross-platform development -- something OSS needs to support if its platforms are to attact commercial attention. The Wx license is also far more friendly to commercial development than gTk (or Qt).

I am making the implicit statement that commercial == proprietary, because this is how most of the world operates, and that isn't going to change any time soon. Sure, there is software that doesn't follow this model. But not a lot of it.

Next, the idea that all editors should support the OpenOffice format. Besides the fact that many of these editors predate OpenOffice, again have the question: why? What makes the OpenOffice format superior? Is it because it is based on a sucky data encoding failure called XML? Why not use a mature and powerful DTP standard like Tex?

Years of experience has shown that the golden goal of application interoperability is just not going to happen. Innovation demands going beyond standards and what has been done before. This is the only way that software -- OSS or proprietary -- has been able to progress over time. Linux's attraction compared to traditional Unix platforms comes from its differences.

Jorn at robotwisdom has been ranting about XML for a years now.

xmlsucks.org has a whole wiki of xml rants.

The Advogato has discussed xml evils at least once. There are more rants in the user journals if you've got time to search.

XML is just a text markup - a very verbose, flexible one at that. It's not much different than a good hammer. Great tool for pounding nails ... but not everything is a nail ...

Sure, just look here, which lists many of the problems quite well.

For a more detailed, and more depressing, take on the above, see http://www.xmlsucks.org/but_you_have_to_use_it_any way/.

Yes, it's a PDF. Unroll it - it's worth the effort.