On 8/28/2014 5:07 PM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad"
<[email protected]>" wrote:
On Thursday, 28 August 2014 at 19:47:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 8/28/2014 5:29 AM, Kagamin wrote:
and the only way
to make them scale is to turn them into syntactical equivalent of XML
with closing tags. And even then more verbose than XML itself. So what's
a difference from XML if good config language still must have XML
syntax?
The differences (off the top of my head, there may be more):
- Nobody has to actually write the closing
- Nobody had to keep the opening/closing in sync
- The closing takes up zero bytes
- Nobody has to actually look at the closing if they want to reduce
the visual clutter: Ie, viewing it is an optional thing.
So it has no advantage over using a grammar-based XML editor, just less
flexible and more clumsy… Sounds like the wrong trade-off.
I could easily turn that around and say a grammar-based XML editor has
no advantage over my suggestion. I certainly don't see what's "less
flexible" about it. And I find some of the tricks that grammar-based XML
editors do to be clumsy and in-my-way (specifically when they
automagically insert text I didn't type).
*Without* any editor support, JSON-style and XML-style both have pro/con
tradeoffs. I prefer the JSON-style tradeoffs.
*With* an ideal level of editor support, JSON-style and XML-style can
pretty much reach feature parity.
I still hate dealing with XML though ;)
(tags don't take much space when the file is compressed)
If it really needs to be compressed, then the format may be too verbose
anyway. It doesn't really strike me as passing the "less clumsy"
criteria either. Ehh, but I'm a fan of binary for interchange anyway, so
whatever ;)
