Re: XML: The good, the bad, and the ugly

From: robert <gnuoytr_at_rcn.com>
Date: 4 Oct 2004 13:39:19 -0700
Message-ID: <da3c2186.0410041239.6e433ab8_at_posting.google.com>


"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:<_PSdneE0efWEH_3cRVn-hg_at_comcast.com>...
> "Lemming" <thiswillbounce_at_bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:qt90m0djj2uqq5l1vhqhs5betjcbevcgsg_at_4ax.com...
>
> > Parsers ought to be easier to write, but my experience of watching C++
> > programmers struggling to parse even fairly simple XML structures
> > leads me to think that it is in fact a lot harder than csv or even
> > structured flat files.
>
> This is very discouraging. I would have expected the value of OO for
> writing simulators, going back to SIMULA, would carry over into parsers.
> Then again, maybe it takes a long time to become a good C++ programmer.
> Maybe the time it takes tolearn C++ distracts from time spent learning
> programming.
>
> I'm not referring to the OO features of C++. Rather to the features that
> make is so low level.

in the java world, no one writes an application specific parser. there are bucketloads of SAX and DOM (with variants, of course). in all, this makes using xml a more heavyweight implementation. but, hey, it's off the shelf stuff.

as historical perspective, xml as B2B (and to a lesser extent B2C) implementation of data transport, arose from the assertion (not true from actual experience, i suspect) that using the xml plumbing (parser, https, vpn, etc) would be cheaper and easier than existing EDI implmentations which, IIRC, are binary data streams over VAN/WAN. it wasn't that xml was even a better bullet, let alone a magic one. Received on Mon Oct 04 2004 - 22:39:19 CEST

Original text of this message