Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why XML Doesn't Suck

Posted by michael on from the batter-up dept.

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.'"

9 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Sammy Sosa analogy maybe not the best by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  2. Why XML doesn't suck ... by mustangdavis · · Score: 5, Funny

    .... 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
  3. Hang on... by Quixote · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Hang on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually its doing a 180.

    2. Re:Hang on... by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is doing a 360

      Going around in circles yet ending up where you started? I think you mean 180.

      We're going to turn this team around 360 degrees.
      - Jason Kidd, upon his drafting to the Dallas Mavericks

      That sounds like the Mavs., going around in circles but never really going anywhere.
      - Me.

      Well, then anyway, they're not all that bad at the moment, best motion offense in the league.

  4. I DO hate XML by ruiner13 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I have to write SOAP calls for our .NET website, and i'll be damned if XML isn't the most irritating language ever. It wouldn't be so bad if everyone could agree on syntax, but since XML is so vague of a language for every implementation there is a different syntax, even amongst the SOAP standard XML specs. I am currently working on hafing our website make a SOAP call to a PERL::Lite SOAP server, and can't get the .NET to get the right data out of the response, even though the Perl server understands the .NET request fine, and is sending the right response. If it was really the panacea for programmers, there would be no interoperability problems. Sure, a human can look at any XML schema and know what is going on, but computers are the ones who have to deal with it, and they seem to have problems frequently.

    Just my 2 cents.

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

  5. XML Confers Longevity by Spudnuts · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. I agree, XML does not suck by dsoltesz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Code embedded in XML by CyberGarp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.