XML isn't inherently bad. People just use it in the wrong situations

XML isn't inherently bad. People just use it in the wrong situations.

Attached: xml_img.png (400x400, 37K)

xml was replaced by json. There is no reasons to use xml.

You're right, OP.
is a faggot.

doesn't json use less characters and can do basically the same stuff?

Sometimes you want to see the visible structure.

I currently deal with a lot of XML as a markup language for technical documentation. It seems like the right technology for the job as far as I can tell. There's not really a choice in the matter because it's for a government that adheres to a specification called S1000D which uses XML.

XML does a lot more, but this can be a good or bad thing. "Less characters" as a metric has about the same worth as it does with programming languages. Which isn't to say it's irrelevant, some people clearly really, really care about that, hence language wars.

Json is better

what can XML do that can't be done in JSON?

>People just use it in the wrong situations.
You could have written it as "people just use it."

>what can SEEPLUSPLUS do that can't be done in ASSEMBLY?

Wake me when client side XML transformation exists for JSON.
No, really. Please do because if I have to write one more fucking XSLT file ...

Comments

json doesn't even support fucking comments

JSON can't into
- annotated encodings
- text nodes and elements nested without retarded markup
- lot of standard tools and APIs
Mostly it boils down to XML being much better for rich, semantical markup'd text which is why it king in the typesetting industry and why you'll see it in some text files in the AAA game industry.

spent the better half of the past year trying to cleanup and organize my companies config files

finally getting to the point where things are starting to make sense

some idiot made an integration app that uses:
json config (json)
ini config (custom format)
exe.config (xml)

fucking
morons

JSON:
- smaller.
- faster to parse.
- more human readable.

XML:
- It's not "JavaScript" so you can feel superior.

XML is absolute horror when you're dealing with large data sets.

>query SOAP API of tool used at work
>Expect ... in the SOAP response I can easily extract with the same XML parser
>Get a SOAP response containing the base64-encoded string version of ... instead
wat

>SOAP
More like NOPE. Had enough fun trying to get .NET and Java to interoperate. Mainly because we're doing message signing and they both handle things like newlines in slightly different ways.

Attached: help.png (473x767, 632K)

If your using SQL Server JSON is a ducking nightmare to work with.

XML on the other hand works really well.

They should just follow IBM's lead and convert JSON to XML internally to reuse all of their existing tooling.

Attached: JSONX.png (2291x1044, 148K)

If your using JSON you'd be retarded to not use a NoSQL db over SQL anyway

Useful for hierarchical data like layouts.

Wasn't my choice.
I didn't choose our DB and I had control over what type of files o was given. For that reason I used SSIS to bring in various file types.

That fico score string looks illegit as fuck. Shouldn't it be escaped?

>all these js pajeets rambling about "muh json"
Kek, the only board where pajeets are more prominent is Jow Forums

XML is not a good way to visualize.

There is no right situation for xml.

As of today there is no single way to represent relationships in JSON, as is required for a proper RESTful interface

XML is too fucking verbose (more to type if you do it manually, more to store on your harddrive and wasted bandwidth when using it over the network).
There is no reason for this shit. Half the features in it are disabled by default in most implementions because they are security risks or enable DOS attacks
and the other half are useless garbage like XSL.

Use YAML when you need a format for configuration that is usable by humans and JSON for communication.
Maybe something specialized and binary like Protobuf if you really need to use the fewest bytes possible.

It probably should be, but I'm guessing most XML parsers will be OK with a > not preceded by an open

t. javashit webfag

XML based standards always come from faggots utterly devoid of real life experience.

Attached: shittyGML.png (2419x1271, 128K)

Eh, given the choice I would always prefer
(This (sort (of (visual 'representation))))
# over
representation

I would argue that the first is nicer to read for both humans and machine, but I may be talking out of my ass.

Attached: tumblr_op4kpvDPvp1s8am4ao2_1280.png (434x377, 76K)

VS.

(((≥)))

Attached: 1520903702391.jpg (1274x720, 97K)

yep, (coincidence (coincidence (coincidence ≥))) is cleaner and immediately readable.

although, it would be even more desirable in that case to define something along the lines of
(nest 'coincidence 3 ≥)