This sounded interesting, so I went to the webpage, and found this point specifically called out: > MusicXML provides multiple ways of encoding the same musical concept, and some applications don't take the effort to check for all possible scenarios. You can use XML parsimoniously, but there's not much overlap between the people doing that and the people who love XSLT. Many people who push back against XML are not uneducated, but rather jaded on it, having worked with ambiguous formats, buggy schemas, and 4000-line long configuration behemoths that should have just been code. > Any time a dev pushes back against XML, it's been my experience they are uneducated on the subject. You already need the code to save and load your XML into a format you prefer in memory just use that format for these tasks. Sure, if you're literally only transforming the exact same data from one XML schema to another, as some sort of adapter step, then XSLT beats general-purpose languages but you're never just doing that, are you? You're linking in other data sources, validating things, sending things over the wire, etc. The fact that XSLT is Turing Complete only drives home the point that it's not a "powerful markup language", it's "poorly-designed programming language". If you're writing ETL scripts to transform data around, use an actual programming language. Considering it as a programming language, it rather sucks. It's only "super-powerful" considering XSLT as a markup language. > Something like XSLT isn't for human interaction it's for super-powerful machine transformations. "But you just define an XML Schema to disambiguate" - so now you're doing more work in a separate file that you have to publish and link in just to solve a problem that JSON doesn't have at all. XML is less precise because it's more flexible. How is it going to look in XML? It might look like this: You know exactly what this is going to look like in JSON: Say you have an object with a Name as a string. If there are 3 different ways of doing something, the data structure is less precise. > Flexible definition of data allows for greater precision of data structure. It's on my to-do list to implement the same thing for the JSON version - which is essentially like inline comments(ish), if you squint. The MusicXML docs and the MNX docs use the same system (a Django app), and the MusicXML part uses a custom XML tag to define "this part of the XML example should be highlighted in blue" (example. Regarding that examples page, I'm actually planning to do something along those lines anyway. With that said, we'd like to add a standard way to add vendor-specific information to an MNX document - which is definitely a must-have, for applications that will use MNX as a native format - and I could see a comments-ish thing appearing in that form. Given the choice between supporting comments and supporting a wider variety of implementations/libraries ("plain" JSON as opposed to a comments-supporting variant), I think the latter is a more practical priority. Thanks! We're not planning to support inline comments at this time this was a tradeoff we knew we'd have to make when we decided to use JSON. shares about to IPO and somehow I missed it? Do you have a few hundred million in JSON Inc. You're just plainly wrong, and I don't know why or how you'd bother to be. I guess that means you think it was perfect on its first try? When the fuck has that ever happened with software? Json though? Best I can figure is that imbeciles just got used to picking the worst, even when there was no expense tradeoff. the best technology is usually more expensive, and economic forces favor the cheapest. I'm old enough to understand why this is usually true. That json succeeded doesn't mean anything, other than that it was the worst. I am almost 50, and since as early as I can remember, the worst technology always wins when there is some sort of standoff. > It's so "absolutely necessary" that JSON has found hardly any success And guess what? Json largely is just that. Or it seems that JSON works just fine without commentsĬode that can't be annotated might as well be machine code.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |