Slashdot Mirror
Why XML Doesn't Suck
Richard Eriksson writes "Recalling the earlier discussion on why XML sucks for programmers, Tim Bray clarifies his stance on his co-creation, XML, and gets back on his pulpit to declare that XML Doesn't Suck. He writes: 'Let's look at some of XML's chief virtues, then I'll address some of the XML-sucks arguments, in the same spirit that Sammy Sosa addresses a fastball.'"
in the same spirit that Sammy Sosa addresses a fastball
You mean he strikes out swinging on three pitches while trying to jack the ball in the stands instead of trying to make contact?
.... because people will pay you out the ying-yang to convert their system to use XML ...
... enough said!
Besides, it is a great buzz word!!!
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
Going from "XML sucks" to "XML doesn't suck" isn't clarifying your stance! It is doing a 360. Even Bill "I didn't have sex with that woman" Clinton would have a tough time with this one.
Just my 2 cents.
today is spelling optional day.
Mr. Bray makes a point about the longevity of XML based documents (where he says that tying up documents in a binary format is foolish), but this is a point that (La)TeX users have been arguing for years.
Will XML really solve this problem? Hopefully the OpenOffice format will help, but if Microsoft maintains its marketshare (and keeps its XML generation limited or even proprietary), are we really better off?
I'll just stick with LaTeX.
I havn't read the article yet, but XML does NOT suck because:
1. the data and/or fields added at anytime WITHOUT breaking anything
2. the data is in a heiracherical format, reducing data replication and allowing for a more sophisticated data structure.
3. the daya can be changed by a text editor.
4. and BECAUSE the data is text, it compresses REALLY well.
I don't get all this fuss over XML. It seems to me that it's just a pretty handy markup language for programmers to use to store data in a human-readable (and therefore human-editable) fashion, that (with the help of things like libxml) also happens to be fairly machine readable. It's also extensible (X- duh!) and yet also has its limits.
/. stories about this? Can somebody explain why this raises people's passions so? It seems to me like arguing the merits of HTML or SGML - it's all so bloody obvious!
Why are there so many
As a web developer & admin, XML is my best friend. I have cases where I need non-webheads to develop content (better yet, portable content), and XML is the only way - they only have to know a basic set of HTML tags, they don't have to worry about HTML validation, formatting, or anything else, and everything they generate is consistent!
Not ony can I transform their content into different views or formats, but (for example) the same XML file that is used to provide software documentation also is used to build the software GUI and provide tool tips and other forms of context sensitive help.
No database required. No parsing required. Just a couple libraries and tools, and we're set to go.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
XML is much better that anything else in certain situations.
XML is much worst that lots of other choices in certain situations.
Why can't you see the shades of grey, and insist on seeing all in black and white ?
Have fun,
Daniel
I saw a letter to Dr. Dobbs recently that was saying that XML needed to have the ability to embed things like Visual Basic and javascript in it to be really useful. I think that this is a horrible idea. The whole point of XML was to have a generic data model, i.e. one parser to rule them all.
I've been able to do thing like export MySQL schemas into XML, then using XSLT generate an entire set of base classes providing persistent objects. What was once weeks worth of work, now takes an afternoon (from concept to final product). The whole set is entirely consistent, no misspelled names or changed signatures. When bugs were found, I fixed all the files in one place and rerun the XML/XSLT script. Massive productivity boost. If that isn't an argument on why XML doesn't suck I don't know what is.
The idea of embedding code in XML is a perverse distortion of what XML is really about. XML would suck if one uses it for unintended purposes. I don't use a hammer to tighten machine bolts, well I guess some people do.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
The main thesis of Tim Bray's original post was that he didn't like having to choose between either storing all his data in memory (i.e. DOM) or using a callbacks(i.e. SAX) when processing XML. The problem with this kind of thinking is that although it may have been true two or three years ago that the only way to process XML was via DOM or SAX this is no longer the case.
.NET Framework. Similar APIs exist in the Java world as well as Python from what I've heard. This is besides the current push in some quarters for programming languages that natively process XML (i.e. intrinsicly understand an XML datamodel or datatype).
.NET Framework. This article on XML.com points to other people who also point out that such pull-based APIs for processing XML are available on other platforms and languages as well.
There are more classes of APIs supported on multiple platforms for processing XML such as pull-based APIs and cursor based APIs which are represented by the System.Xml.XmlReader and System.Xml.XPath.XPathNavigator in the
Tim Bray's original problem was that he doesn't have a pull-based API for XML parsing in Perl. I pointed out in my kuro5hin diary how the pseudo code he showed as being his ideal for processing XML already exists in C# and
People who say XML sucks are the people who are forced to look at it and change it by hand.
But XML is not for that!
XML is like dough. Nobody eats raw dough (it's probably OK to eat it, but it ISN'T tasty), but eats cookies and bread instead.
XML is NOT for user and/or administrator usual exposure, XML is for application data transfer.
And applications that require XML to be written by human are only half done: they should be used in combination with HumanInput -> XML generation programs.
You read some of the arguments against XML, and you realize that people just don't "get it".
1 - XML sucks as a language
Repeat after me, XML is NOT a language. Certainly not in the sense that C++ is a language. XML is a standard that defines how one structures data.
2 - XML is bloated, I can send binary much cheaper/easier
DUH. If your application is fine using binary data transfer, then USE it. HOWEVER, many applications that either have to A) communicate with other applications or B) have to deal with varying data sets benefit greatly from using XML. Anyone who has been programming for any length of time knows that while binary is more compact, it is less flexible and potentially more error prone. Want to add a new field in the middle of your data, boy you better not get your software versions mixed. Want to write an app that can do reasonably intelligent things with ANY data it recieves, binary is not the way to go. As with all things in life, use the tool for that which it was intended (vs some peoples view that it is the end all be all of data representation).
3 - It's slow
Same as 2 above. If absolute performance is an issue, then by all means, use whatever representation gives you what you need. XML is about flexibility and standardization, NOT performance.
4 - It's complex
Well as complex as you want to make it, and it does sometimes encourages more complexity than is really needed, but it doesn't FORCE you into it. If you want/need schemas, go for it. If you need the functionality but in a simpler form, then do that (unless of course you need to communicate with another system expecting a schema, but his is obvious). It's just like C++, you don't HAVE to use templates and multiple inheritence (hell, you don't even have to create classes if you don't want/need), you use the parts of the tool that are useful and provide benefit, you don't use them just because they're there.
So I don't see what all the bruhaha is about. It has it's strengths, it has it's weaknesses. As with anything, relatively, new, people are trying it in various places. Some of these places not really fit, others do. I've designed apps that benefited greatly, others I've dismissed xml for entirely.
I work for a VAN (Value Added Network) which is basically a middleman for data. You send an electronic purchase order to us; the company you're ordering from gets it from us. The value we add is we'll say you sent and tell you they got it.
However, we charge by the kilocharacter of data you send and receive per month. So, for us, XML is awesome, because it increases the size of an ASCII-X12 or EDIFACT document by a factor of 5-a lot more (usually somewhere around 15-20 I think).
X12 and EDIFACT are standards for business document exchange that have been around for a while, but people are converting to XML because they think it's better (eventhough, usually, they just use the X12 or EDIFACT format, but with XML tags).
For example, a line item record may go from something like this:
LIN:0001
to something like this:
<LIN_GROUP>
<LIN>
<LIN_01>0001</LIN_01>
</LIN>
</LIN_GROUP>
It's not always that bad, but it can also be much worse. (Imagine replacing each instance of "LIN" above with "Line_Item" and "LIN_01" with "Line_Item_Number".) (And why won't that semi-colon after the LIN_01 end tag go away?)
so-- for us, XML doesn't suck-- it increases our revenue. For our clients, it's sucks, because it increases their monthly bill.
Are you smoking crack? I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but have you seen
Granted, MS hasn't backported everything to XML (think we'll ever see an XML registry?) but everything going forward has XML tattooed all over it. I happen to love XML, but if anything Microsoft tends toward the zealous side.
Ppppppht! *sprays water all over monitor* Microsoft's not "implementing it?" What in the heck do you mean by that? Have you taken a look at anything in the .NET suite lately? The entire system is built on XML. The solution files, project files, assembly manifests, application configuration files, setup binding files - they're all XML! Visual Studio .NET is build extensively on XML, and the .NET API includes some very intuitive and powerful classes for reading, manipulating, and building XML documents. I suggest you do at least a cursory investigation before spouting something so outrageously inaccurate next time.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
if you were trying to convey the fact that MS has embraced and extended the fsck out of XML, thus totally destroying it and not properly implementing it, then yes, I would agree...
Micro$oft sure has some balls extending the "eXtensible Markup Language"...
But bureaucrats being what they are (and bureaucrats being in charge of environmental agencies), they've been told that XML is a GOOD THING, and want to force everything into that mold. And it doesn't fit!
Call it the "law of the instrument," as someone (Poul Anderson, I think, put it:
That's XML, to a tee!"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"