Re: XML: The good, the bad, and the ugly
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 02:42:50 +0100
Message-ID: <mhvrl0tol9qii69mi0p2p5is836p69823l_at_4ax.com>
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:43:34 -0400, "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
wrote:
>In one of the other discussions, XML was listed as one of the bad things
>perpetrated by the object oriented people. And I've seen a lot of
>discussion in here about using XML instead of a DBMS.
>
>I've never had the opportunity to get up close and personal with XML. I
>went to a lecture on XML once, and my impression was... Neat! They've
>extended the concept of self-describing data to data in transit as well as
>data inside a DBMS. I'll confess that I never even thought of getting rid
>of the DBMS. After I've heard that idea, I'm puzzled.
>
>If I compare XML to something like comma separated values, I think that XML
>is a good way of representing a wide variety of data. And I think it's a
>pretty good way of exchanging data, too, even if it isn't very concise. I
>imagine that you can make it more concise by defining a record type, and
>then supplying a stream of records, but that's more XML than I really know.
>
>But XML instead of DBMS? The mind boggles. You have to be able to
>represent data in order to manage it. You have to be able to exchange data
>in order to manage it. And you have to be able to decode it. But that's
>just the beginning of data management. There's a whole lot more that a DBMS
>has to do, and it seems to me that XML doesn't even begin to address all the
>issues.
>
>It would be like trying to put a capsule on the moon by using a baseball
>bat!
-- Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.Received on Sat Oct 02 2004 - 03:42:50 CEST