[kkarakk]

Your contrived example falls flat because JSON is flat out better for most use-cases and anyone having a discussion about it will probably fit into those use-cases.

People don't discuss solutions in a vacuum. Ideally they'd think about what the potential fallbacks of using XML alternatives are before jumping into a new tech. Which they will, unless they're really really new

[tonyedgecombe]

The funny thing is there are developers[1][2][3] out there who would like to turn JSON into XML.

[1] https://json-schema.org [2] http://www.jsoniq.org [3] https://www.p6r.com/articles/2008/05/06/xslt-and-xpath-for-j...

[umvi]

> Your contrived example falls flat because JSON is flat out better for most use-cases and anyone having a discussion about it will probably fit into those use-cases.

Easy to say with hindsight now that it is massively popular and has a huge ecosystem of parsers for every conceivable language. At the time it was invented though, it was yet another data exchange format and I'm sure there were a lot of grey beards pooh-poohing it.

[DocTomoe]

Back in the day, XML was almost universally hated by the people you describe as "greybeards", mostly because it was a convoluted "one size fits all" approach, hijacked by business, that ate bandwidth for overhead with none of it's promised benefits actually materializing (because everyone created their own, quasi-proprietary XML Scheme).

[wolco]

I remember a .NET developer using it in place of json. That was the slowest system I've ever seen.

[Ididntdothis]

I would say JSON is a little bit better than XML in some areas but also worse in a some. XML could easily have been extended with a few attributes. there was no real need for doing something completely different.

[nradov]

JSON is worse than XML if your use case requires namespaces.

[kickopotomus]

Tangentially, this is one of the reasons that I am a fan of EDN[1] over JSON.

[1]: https://github.com/edn-format/edn