On 28/07/2010 18:49, J. Landman Gay wrote:
On 7/28/10 11:33 AM, Mark Wieder wrote:
...and for my two cents' worth, it's hard to think of using the terms
"xml" and "performance" in the same thought...
Yeah. And it's hard to work with in all kinds of ways. I can't figure
out why it's become the de facto standard for so many things. Surely
there's a better way.
I think the three of us must be old! I used to sniff at XML too: not only the
performance implications of parsing it, but also the appalling verbosity as a
format.
But, pardoning me for pointing out (and apologies in advance if it's just me)
we're... ol^H^H experienced; we've grown up when every byte and cpu cycle was
precious and it was worth hours or days to save a few. Now we're conserving
the wrong things: because CPUs are incredibly fast, and RAM is vast, and
drives are huge, and the cloud is inexhaustible... and the resource that is
really scarce now is developer time. XML saves a great deal of that, and the
cost in performance and compactness is a small price to pay.
The advent of smartphones made me think for the first time in years that at
last my rusty old reactions, that my young colleagues sneer at, had a value
again - but it turns out that even these tiny things have such performance and
capacity that I'm wrong, yet again.
yrs aye,
'Old Ben'
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
