[keithb-]

Okay, first of all, the current fascination with JSON is not fundamentally different from the previous fascination with XML. The only thing that anyone can agree on is that JSON is easy to parse just like its predecessor. This is why XSLT came into existence: firstly, it was easy to parse, secondly, ..., thirdly, profit (i.e. reuse, generalization, performance, etc. etc. etc.).

On the other hand, this language is bananas because the programmer is writing the AST and that is what a parser is supposed to do for him/her. Manually coding the AST is like harvesting an acre of corn by hand. If you can find a more inefficient method, then by all means use it.

And just for good measure, XML is not a "data description language", it is a type system; probably the most complex type system I've ever seen and it wasn't a bad idea, it was simply more complex than any application would ever need.

I don't dislike XML, and I think it will continue to live just like Haskell because every generation will come to understand that its extreme faith in generalization has little practical use just about the same time that a new generation first discovers it. So while one is dying to simplify, the other is dying to espouse the existential core of computer science.

[falcolas]

> XML is not a "data description language", it is a type system

XML means "eXtensible Markup Language" - so pretty much exactly a description of the data it contains. Granted, you can mark up a bit of data with a type, but you can mark it up with anything else as well.

I've even seen entire programming languages built upon XML.

[drostie]

I actually don't think that would be all bad if you in addition paired some parsers and serializers for other formats in your standard library.

That could actually be a really fun language: "you can write this in Haskell-syntax, Python-syntax, or C-syntax, we don't care, just make sure that you enclose it in the corresponding

    <parse-as lang="c">
    // ...
    </parse-as>

and then `myprogram.c.x` will get compiled to `myprogram.x` which is a standard XML file, which you can then edit with `x-to-py myprogram.x >myprogram.py.x && vim myprogram.py.x` and have a field day of it."

Sort of like the PL equivalent of Lennon's Imagine.

[falcolas]

It was moderately more complicated that this, as it represented the actual program tree structure within XML. Imagine lisp with XML tags in place of parentheses.

[keithb-]

> XML means "eXtensible Markup Language" - so pretty much exactly a description of the data it contains.

This is the belief that Eric Browne argued against in 2003[1]. "exactly a description of the data" only works when a human looks at it, which is the same argument for JSON. These two things "describe" the same object:

<person><firstname>Eric</firstname></person> { "person" : { "firstname":"Eric" } }

But using Browne's argument, a parser might see these objects as:

<hshhd><uueus>Eric</uueus></hshhd> { "hshhd" : { "uueus":"Eric" } }

How does that description help the parser?

What I'm saying is that XML is system for defining types, subtypes, relationships, etc. and that this type system can be used by programs that are written to interact with document instances in a way that is not dissimilar from other statically-typed languages. In a sense, you're agreeing when you say that XML has been used for programming languages because, in that case, a document instance might contain blocks of programming statements not instructions for a machine. It must be parsed and compiled first which takes some knowledge of the type system, i.e. how to create AST's and transform them into instructions.

I'm also saying that the problem with XML comes from the inability to reason about type systems in a general way. I can give you my XSD but will you know what to do with my data? And if I give you the XSD, and I tell you what to do with the data, then won't we writing the same program? Wouldn't it be easier to just share a library?

[1] http://workflow.healthbase.info/monographs/XML_myths_Browne....

[falcolas]

That's because there is no implicit data structure to XML mapping by default. This is a good thing; it makes XML much more flexible.

Of course, that flexibility is what burdened us with SOAP, XBRL, and other monstrosities; but I blame the creators of SOAP, not XML. XML is the "C" of the data markup world (simple but flexible), whereas JSON is more akin to "Java" (heavily restricted in capability, resulting in workarounds to represent complex concepts).

    { "hshhd" : { "uueus":"Eric" } }

How would JSON be any better in this case?