|
|
|
|
|
by BrandonM
6512 days ago
|
|
It's not just about the amount of markup, though, it's about the unnecessary complexity of the markup. The software that generates and parses S-expressions is much simpler than that which generates and parses XML. Of course, in Lisp, it's just (let ((list (read data)))
...)
But even in Python, you could easily hack together (not recommended) something like list = ", ".join(data.split())
...
Of course, that's not robust, but the library which is robust is much simpler than the one that requires the use of a C sax parser just to be usably fast.If the argument is that XML is more human-readable, that is implying that it's being human-modified, and then XML creates more work since it's so verbose. If the verbosity is not an issue because it's auto-generated, that implies that it's not being read/modified by humans, and the whole point of using XML in the first place is lost. I just can't see any problem that XML solves that S-expressions didn't already solve in a simpler way. |
|
There's more to XML than just annoying angle braces.