Schemas are really only one step away from a parser definition. You might as well tell them to provide you with a yacc-file (or what's it called today in the java world - antlr ?). Integrates much better into your project anyway. No, I'm trolling - sorry. It's fine that you can demand such things from your other parties. Some people can't, or when they request a DTD (remember those ?), they overload a server at the W3C.
Re:Yeah, Mission accomplished, watch W take credit
on
Fidel Castro Resigns
·
· Score: 1
While you state your payload a bit trollishly, it is indeed good to remind everyone from time to time that the initiators of the Cuban revolution and their associate members (Che) were (and are) indeed no strangers to limitless incarceration, torture and execution without trial. IOW, lots of people having lots of blood on their hands, who can only hope to outlast the offspring of their enemies or be forgiven because it's been such a goddamn long time.
I was writing XML parsers in C in 1998, because my boss thought it had to be done; it was the next big thing. (He had no notion whatsoever that it was just a friggin' data format, but that's an aside). So I like to think that I know what I'm talking about; the format is bloated and difficult (whitespace rules ! escape sequences ! CDATA sections ! Unicode support in programming languages in 1998 !) and expensive to parse. My advice is: if you can avoid it, do so. If you can't, use perl. GUI tools are fine. Tech that can only live thanks to GUI tools is bad. Automating through shell scripts must always be possible and GUI tools are not particularly good with that.
It's bad because people ARE generating XML by hand, which, according to the spec, they should be able to do, making a lot of syntactical mistakes in the process (to which it is prone). Plus; it's terrible to read. It's also bad because on the machine side, it takes a lot of effort (CPU cycles, parser-programmer effort) to decipher. In other words, it the worst of both worlds. It's the Visual Basic of formats: you can really only use it with GUI tools, but you can't really do what you really want to do with it in the way you want to do it.
XML is for people who do not know about perl TIEs. Who do not know about tree-based functional declaration formats or languages. Who do not know about parser syntax or regular expressions. There is a divide in the realm of programmers. You either close the divide (through education), or provide them with XML. That's how it works.
"Here's one basic, freakin' obvious rule: if a human, at any time at all, has to read or manually edit an XML document, you're doing it wrong."
I hate to break it to you, but that was one of the/points/ of XML; the human read/editability. In fact, if that is/not/ the point of XML, there is no reason to use it at all; you would just use some binary format.
There were many young western people joining 'the good fight' in Latin America, or joining terrorist groups in Europe in the seventies. Some of them survived and wrote books about it. Even today this happens: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2007/09/dutch_girl_serves_with_colombi.php For the record: I despise them all equally.
Only the last approach works, but then it still requires authentication. And I don't want authentication - the server is in my house and I trust everyone in my house.
'Atheism' (as is 'agnosticism') is a label stuck onto us, who would just rather be left alone by the religious types, who cannot for the life of them be convinced that other people don't need a god or an extra label in their existence. To label yourself as such means that you're playing *their* semantic game. Or it may mean that you haven't yet understood what their label-sticking is all about; it's about having fill-in forms with a caption 'Religion' on it. So that *they* can fill in something (and feel proud and confirmed), but also so that *you* have to fill in something. And if you feel bad about that - even if it isn't because you 'miss a god' but because you just don't want to be labeled or because you simply don't know what to fill in there, then they've scored another two points. Reason like this: Am I an atheist ? No. Do I believe in God or am I otherwise religious ? No. Good - now I've confused them.
Hey ! Now that I'm in the company of macintosh fans; how do I make a quick-link/shortcut/menu-item on the desktop/menu/dock to connect to an SAMBA server anonymously ? I run Linux at home (with one central linux based NAS) but my wife has a macbook. I can easily configure my X-desktop to contain such links (one link opens a nautilus window to the right SAMBA path), but I cannot for the life of me find out how to make such a thing a one-click event on her machine. It wants you to take the full route of browsing through layers of network namespace and then you cannot make it accept that one doesn't need an account without expressly leaving options blank. Too much trouble for her - she hardly uses it. But I want her to use this storage because it gets backed up. Please mac-fans ? How ?
It might be true; I don't know if it's still the case, but when I used it, in 2003, the standard java xslt processor used to/refuse/ to work without network connectivity because of it's own standard DTD. Completely without imagination, these people.
Well, I've just looked at the wiki article somebody helpfully posted and I must apologize. I run in this business for a good number of years now, but I'd never realized that there's an official distinction desktop -> workstation -> server. I mean, if you say it so explicitly, it kinda makes sense, but If I run all my server programs on my desktop (which I do), do I end up in the middle somewhere and do I now have a workstation ? I always thought that desktops and workstations were the same thing and servers were desktops without GUIs and perhaps a few extra processors and/or disks. I guess I mean to say that the semantics never meant anything to me and the differences are fluid anyway. Sorry.
And I daresay that he isn't the only one. The write-up is confusing, at best. Had me going for a bit, anyway. To ordinary people, even 'ordinary' slashdot-readers, a 'workstation' is some 'station' (a desk with a computer) that you do your 'work' on. That thing will usually contain a graphics controller that is on-board these days, the cost of which has been discounted in the price of the board, and certainly isn't expensive to an extent that a gaming-person's graphics controller will have a 'fraction' of the cost. Chagrin or no chagrin about lay (non-graphics) people reading topics that aren't meant for them, but to act as if this is logical, implicit or otherwise self-explanatory, is disingenuous and not much different from those slashdot-write-ups that start off describing some event in second life as if it happened in real life, and pretend that everybody knows what they're talking about. Clarity is king, and no man is an island and that sort of thing.
I'm a great fan of postgres but I ran into an irritating limitation recently; I replicate a database over a large number of very small nodes using slony. I really don't care about the integrity of the slaves - they're read-only to their clients and should I suspect they're corrupt I just reboot (they live in memory and the OS lives on a 1 Gb read-only flash drive). But postgres insists on having a WAL directory (pg_xlog) with chunks of 16MB in it. And that's big if you live in 128MB of ramdisk, and you can't turn that off. I mean, from my reasoning - the WAL isn't really used unless you do recovery; the versions of the data are in the db itself (otherwise we wouldn't need vacuum, now would we ?) So why can't I just configure postgres to not use WAL ? And then if the db is corrupt we just die. No, say the guys on IRC, you just have to recompile it with its hard-defined value of 16MB down to something lower. Yeah right. I'm not interested in hacks - I want a versatile RDBMS.
He works together with some ostheopath.. eh.. ist, well, a bone surgeon anyway, who makes these 'scaffolds' out of (dead) coral, cause it has a structure that's perfect for the injection of cells. He lives on Aruba, you see. So that's why. Don't know any more about it though - *mumble*.
Ehm, I don't know how old you are, but both Netscape and Opera were always 'free'; that is, Opera had an ad-supported free version, and Netscape was already free before IE was even a reasonable product. Netscape used to make their money by bundling their browser on internet-cds of providers and by selling the Netscape web-server (I forget what its name was). Netscape was the only gui-browser (if you discounted mosaic and/or arena) for Linux for a while. Had to put up with the butt-ugly Motif widgets though, against which it had been statically linked.
Skipped right down to the stuff that perl isn't supposed to do: not supposed to be used in high performance/real time stuff - check, as a replacement for shell scripts where shell scripts are shorter - check (obvious-meter off the scale though), it isn't supposed to be used in CGI. Eh. Right. Because, according to the author, we should be using ruby on rails for that. Eh. Right. Again. Why didn't he just outright say that we should be using j2ee with struts and beans and xml based style sheets ! Oh that was 2007 ! My bad.
Perl was, and is (IMHO) the first and foremost thing you grab when you write web-stuff. CPAN is nothing if not infinite, the web is a text-based thing the perl was designed for, and its speed makes ruby blush. So why ?
Why try to write off perl all the time. Is it because they can't seem to/win/ ?!
Exactly. Perl is fast, powerful and modular, and CPAN is near infinite. You can write perl anyway you want - even legibly. The only beef that a non-kneejerk person could have with perl is that it's big, and that its class definitions suck. And a few of the 'reserved' identifiers that seem a little bit contrived or opportunistic at times. The other higher level languages all lack library support and expressive power. Only their respective ages (all younger than perl) makes that forgivable; it took more than ten years to get java to support generics after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Schemas are really only one step away from a parser definition. You might as well tell them to provide you with a yacc-file (or what's it called today in the java world - antlr ?). Integrates much better into your project anyway. No, I'm trolling - sorry. It's fine that you can demand such things from your other parties. Some people can't, or when they request a DTD (remember those ?), they overload a server at the W3C.
While you state your payload a bit trollishly, it is indeed good to remind everyone from time to time that the initiators of the Cuban revolution and their associate members (Che) were (and are) indeed no strangers to limitless incarceration, torture and execution without trial. IOW, lots of people having lots of blood on their hands, who can only hope to outlast the offspring of their enemies or be forgiven because it's been such a goddamn long time.
I was writing XML parsers in C in 1998, because my boss thought it had to be done; it was the next big thing. (He had no notion whatsoever that it was just a friggin' data format, but that's an aside). So I like to think that I know what I'm talking about; the format is bloated and difficult (whitespace rules ! escape sequences ! CDATA sections ! Unicode support in programming languages in 1998 !) and expensive to parse. My advice is: if you can avoid it, do so. If you can't, use perl. GUI tools are fine. Tech that can only live thanks to GUI tools is bad. Automating through shell scripts must always be possible and GUI tools are not particularly good with that.
It's bad because people ARE generating XML by hand, which, according to the spec, they should be able to do, making a lot of syntactical mistakes in the process (to which it is prone). Plus; it's terrible to read. It's also bad because on the machine side, it takes a lot of effort (CPU cycles, parser-programmer effort) to decipher. In other words, it the worst of both worlds. It's the Visual Basic of formats: you can really only use it with GUI tools, but you can't really do what you really want to do with it in the way you want to do it.
XML is for people who do not know about perl TIEs. Who do not know about tree-based functional declaration formats or languages. Who do not know about parser syntax or regular expressions. There is a divide in the realm of programmers. You either close the divide (through education), or provide them with XML. That's how it works.
"Here's one basic, freakin' obvious rule: if a human, at any time at all, has to read or manually edit an XML document, you're doing it wrong."
/points/ of XML; the human read/editability. In fact, if that is /not/ the point of XML, there is no reason to use it at all; you would just use some binary format.
I hate to break it to you, but that was one of the
The day they started flying planes with joysticks, the gamers were done with them. No sharing of our l33t technologies man !
There were many young western people joining 'the good fight' in Latin America, or joining terrorist groups in Europe in the seventies. Some of them survived and wrote books about it. Even today this happens: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2007/09/dutch_girl_serves_with_colombi.php
For the record: I despise them all equally.
I forgot to say: thanks.
Only the last approach works, but then it still requires authentication. And I don't want authentication - the server is in my house and I trust everyone in my house.
'Atheism' (as is 'agnosticism') is a label stuck onto us, who would just rather be left alone by the religious types, who cannot for the life of them be convinced that other people don't need a god or an extra label in their existence. To label yourself as such means that you're playing *their* semantic game. Or it may mean that you haven't yet understood what their label-sticking is all about; it's about having fill-in forms with a caption 'Religion' on it. So that *they* can fill in something (and feel proud and confirmed), but also so that *you* have to fill in something. And if you feel bad about that - even if it isn't because you 'miss a god' but because you just don't want to be labeled or because you simply don't know what to fill in there, then they've scored another two points. Reason like this: Am I an atheist ? No. Do I believe in God or am I otherwise religious ? No. Good - now I've confused them.
Hey ! Now that I'm in the company of macintosh fans; how do I make a quick-link/shortcut/menu-item on the desktop/menu/dock to connect to an SAMBA server anonymously ? I run Linux at home (with one central linux based NAS) but my wife has a macbook. I can easily configure my X-desktop to contain such links (one link opens a nautilus window to the right SAMBA path), but I cannot for the life of me find out how to make such a thing a one-click event on her machine. It wants you to take the full route of browsing through layers of network namespace and then you cannot make it accept that one doesn't need an account without expressly leaving options blank. Too much trouble for her - she hardly uses it. But I want her to use this storage because it gets backed up. Please mac-fans ? How ?
It might be true; I don't know if it's still the case, but when I used it, in 2003, the standard java xslt processor used to /refuse/ to work without network connectivity because of it's own standard DTD. Completely without imagination, these people.
Well, I've just looked at the wiki article somebody helpfully posted and I must apologize. I run in this business for a good number of years now, but I'd never realized that there's an official distinction desktop -> workstation -> server. I mean, if you say it so explicitly, it kinda makes sense, but If I run all my server programs on my desktop (which I do), do I end up in the middle somewhere and do I now have a workstation ? I always thought that desktops and workstations were the same thing and servers were desktops without GUIs and perhaps a few extra processors and/or disks. I guess I mean to say that the semantics never meant anything to me and the differences are fluid anyway. Sorry.
And I daresay that he isn't the only one. The write-up is confusing, at best. Had me going for a bit, anyway. To ordinary people, even 'ordinary' slashdot-readers, a 'workstation' is some 'station' (a desk with a computer) that you do your 'work' on. That thing will usually contain a graphics controller that is on-board these days, the cost of which has been discounted in the price of the board, and certainly isn't expensive to an extent that a gaming-person's graphics controller will have a 'fraction' of the cost. Chagrin or no chagrin about lay (non-graphics) people reading topics that aren't meant for them, but to act as if this is logical, implicit or otherwise self-explanatory, is disingenuous and not much different from those slashdot-write-ups that start off describing some event in second life as if it happened in real life, and pretend that everybody knows what they're talking about. Clarity is king, and no man is an island and that sort of thing.
Oh, you mean a /colony/.
If only Apple and IBM and stuff were to give back some of their A network space.
I'm a great fan of postgres but I ran into an irritating limitation recently; I replicate a database over a large number of very small nodes using slony. I really don't care about the integrity of the slaves - they're read-only to their clients and should I suspect they're corrupt I just reboot (they live in memory and the OS lives on a 1 Gb read-only flash drive). But postgres insists on having a WAL directory (pg_xlog) with chunks of 16MB in it. And that's big if you live in 128MB of ramdisk, and you can't turn that off. I mean, from my reasoning - the WAL isn't really used unless you do recovery; the versions of the data are in the db itself (otherwise we wouldn't need vacuum, now would we ?) So why can't I just configure postgres to not use WAL ? And then if the db is corrupt we just die. No, say the guys on IRC, you just have to recompile it with its hard-defined value of 16MB down to something lower. Yeah right. I'm not interested in hacks - I want a versatile RDBMS.
Yeah, but the FUD *definitely* stops working once the court cases stop working.
How do you make cross-database joins transactional ?
He works together with some ostheopath.. eh.. ist, well, a bone surgeon anyway, who makes these 'scaffolds' out of (dead) coral, cause it has a structure that's perfect for the injection of cells. He lives on Aruba, you see. So that's why. Don't know any more about it though - *mumble*.
Ehm, I don't know how old you are, but both Netscape and Opera were always 'free'; that is, Opera had an ad-supported free version, and Netscape was already free before IE was even a reasonable product. Netscape used to make their money by bundling their browser on internet-cds of providers and by selling the Netscape web-server (I forget what its name was). Netscape was the only gui-browser (if you discounted mosaic and/or arena) for Linux for a while. Had to put up with the butt-ugly Motif widgets though, against which it had been statically linked.
Skipped right down to the stuff that perl isn't supposed to do: not supposed to be used in high performance/real time stuff - check, as a replacement for shell scripts where shell scripts are shorter - check (obvious-meter off the scale though), it isn't supposed to be used in CGI. Eh. Right. Because, according to the author, we should be using ruby on rails for that. Eh. Right. Again. Why didn't he just outright say that we should be using j2ee with struts and beans and xml based style sheets ! Oh that was 2007 ! My bad.
/win/ ?!
Perl was, and is (IMHO) the first and foremost thing you grab when you write web-stuff. CPAN is nothing if not infinite, the web is a text-based thing the perl was designed for, and its speed makes ruby blush. So why ?
Why try to write off perl all the time. Is it because they can't seem to
'on the internet' !
Exactly. Perl is fast, powerful and modular, and CPAN is near infinite. You can write perl anyway you want - even legibly. The only beef that a non-kneejerk person could have with perl is that it's big, and that its class definitions suck. And a few of the 'reserved' identifiers that seem a little bit contrived or opportunistic at times. The other higher level languages all lack library support and expressive power. Only their respective ages (all younger than perl) makes that forgivable; it took more than ten years to get java to support generics after all.