Is XML dead yet?

Is XML dead yet?

Attached: xml.png (261x193, 4K)

Json is inferior

Json is superior

How is xml superior to json

Twice the words to store the same data means it must be twice as good

Flawless logic

You are both retarded

Both have different applications. XML is best for rich datasets, JSON is best for lighter datasets and for use where JavaScript is utilised.

>for use where JavaScript is utilised.
I don't think I've ever used it with JS

WHERE'S YOUR MESSIAH NOW?

JavaScript can parse and read data when its XML formatted, however since JSON is designed to work well with JavaScript you'd probably have an easier time with it. Although it really depends on what kind of data you're dealing with

What about protobuf?

what's a "rich dataset"?
The only place I can see XML being good is for formatting text documents

I hate to parse the xml

Just use E4X ya drongo

I hate to write the xml
seriously, xml should just go and stay go, it's such a fucking mess by now

>drongo
Are you Australian?

This. Parsing is the easy part, reading and writing XML itself causes third degree retina burns.

It's dying in places where it does't belong. It's flourishing in places where it is the best option, eg. typesetting.

HTML is applicate XML

HTML

serialized state machines and physics engine data

>physics engine data
XML is overkill even for this.

XML is shit SHIT I SAY

Meh...
I prefer .docx
Much easier to read.

It wont be dead as long as you can't validate data in other formats like json

I use it to create Android apps on Android studio, so no...

It's nice to store composing layouts and hierarchical data. For anything else is gay.

Apples to oranges. Any XML can be easier to read when viewed in a WYSIWYG editor interface such as Microsoft Word. But the reverse is not true, OpenXML (the XML schema .docx uses) is not easier to read in non-WYSIWYG editors than more semantic schemas like DocBook, DITA, or S1000D.

>I use it for a shit reason nobody cares about waaahahaahahhhaaaaaaaaaaa
Please leave.

For everything else there's Mastercard.

>tfw nobody uses YAML

Attached: cryingwojack.jpg (225x225, 9K)

Attached: crying_cat_sto.jpg (318x313, 11K)

Isn't HTML itself (e.g. this very webpage) XML?

>this very webpage
Haha everyone point and laugh at the non-phone poster.

JSON mustard race.

That's just zipped XML

you sound like MANAGEMENT MATERIAL son

schema validation

>pdf

Attached: pepe_shotgun.jpg (709x765, 67K)

are shit use cases for xml

>implying anybody cares about schema validation
lol nigga just close your eyes lol like walk away from the schema lol

What about JSON Schema? I've never used it myself though.

yep, 1000 lines of completely unreadable json is definitely preferable to 10 lines of slightly more readable xml

this kills the xml

xml isn't any more expressive than json, it's just more verbose

Actually no, but XHTML is.
Before HTML5, HTML was SGML. Certain features like
- optional closing tags,
instead of
- case-insensitivity ( =
)
are parts of SGML that XML drops.

Starting with HTML5 though, HTML is officially it's own thing.

>grpc
this kills your json
*pshh nothing personal kiddo*

I have used both and prefer Json, but in my opinion XML is more efficient in cases like

500

instead of

{
"price": {
"type": "$",
"value": 500
}
}

but depending on your system and available resources one is easier to parse even if it is more verbose, so it's more likely a matter of taste I guess

>i wonder why

XML will probably live as long as HTML and SGML live. That could actually be either long or short, as many megacorps seek to destroy the useful web.

great for config files

Your mother's great for config files.

>t. .NET fag

>t. coreos fag

Easy. JSON doesn't have types. Therefore it's less documentation friendly and readable


Is infinitely more readable than
[
{
"name": " id",
"type": "integer"
)
]

XML contains so much more context on types than JSON. This is the reason graphql exists

I just use it because I like the look of it.

Attached: 1524553979905.jpg (449x642, 54K)

Then you have not used js for anything beyound shitty tutorials playing around

Xml was meant to be machines. Json was meant to readable by humans.

[{"name": "12345", "type": "interger"}]


Wow how unreadable

Now add 10 values.

I'm not pointing out that it took up more lines. I'm pointing out that
[{"name": "12345", "type": "interger"}]
is not significant enough to understand what the JSON file is doing. The XML file is clearly stating that it's recording a list of fields to be used in a schema
The equivalent in JSON is
{
"type": "fields",
"values": [
{
"type": "field",
"name": "id",
"data_type": "integer" // oops, can't use "type" here!
}
]
}

God I wish.
I touch the shit everyday. I want to die sometimes.

> "data_type": "integer" // oops, can't use "type" here!
"data_type": 3

S O A P
schemas

>parse XML
>Arrays with more than 1 value remain arrays.
>Arrays with 1 value get converted to objects.
wtf how is this acceptable?

I don't know, but that's the fault of that parser, most just convert it to a tree structure.

>use a shit parser that doens't adhere to the type requirements
>get shit results

>parsing the xml
Bruh look at this dude.

CityGML is the worst abomination XML has ever brought forth.

Attached: 1459311151143.png (499x622, 524K)

Every parser I've tried does either that or inserts an extra node for the "content" part.

Can you post some example input? What language are you using?

I use libxml2 for most things and I can't say I've noticed any such problem.

I use it at work still sometimes

This, I used it recently for a personal project (ISA to Verilog generator, basically) and it was so easy to reuse fields. JSON just doesn't support that in a human readable way.

YAML is shit. YAML can't even be parsed by most languages properly.

I hope

>Xml was meant to be machines
plain text files are not meant for machines

>t. minecraft server admin

Used to knows someone that made money on his minecraft server. Sounds like a comfy job