From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31708 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2004 18:20:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31698 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2004 18:20:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO capitol.mail.pas.earthlink.net) (207.217.120.180) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Aug 2004 18:20:01 -0000 Received: from ip216-26-76-134.dsl.du.teleport.com ([216.26.76.134] helo=stray.canids) by capitol.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1ByDzd-0000Zu-00 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:20:01 -0700 Received: from stray.canids (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by stray.canids (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9A64D400C for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:20:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Felix Lee To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface) References: <20040810201440.GA24186@white> <20040819234921.GA4966@white> <20040820103420.340A64D400C@stray.canids> <20040820125443.GB5703@white> In-Reply-To: <20040820125443.GB5703@white> on Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:54:43 EDT from Bob Rossi Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:20:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20040820182000.5B9A64D400C@stray.canids> X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00251.txt.bz2 Bob Rossi : > I think the main point behind XML is that it is human readable. Also, > every XML developer knows how to read it. Meaning that, I believe it > would take less time to learn how to read it, than some open source > project's grammar. BTW, you don't even have to learn how to read it, > because you don't have to parse it :) The only thing you need to know, > is the spec. xml always reminds me of a less-readable form of COBOL. I have a hard time spotting errors like 'wrong value' in xml, because it's filled with a lot of visual noise that doesn't particularly help humans or machines read it (similar to what Edward Tufte calls 'chartjunk'). > I can see that people are interested in writing front ends that parse the > output of the MI. Why? Do the same people enjoy writing linked lists > over and over again? Do you see my point? Parsing the output of MI is > completely a waste of time. I don't know about anyone else. it's not that I particularly enjoy writing parsers, but xml triggers my 'big and bloaty' reflex. when efficiency isn't important, I tend to favor lisp syntax, which to me is a lot more readable than xml. and I feel like 'include a lisp interpreter' is less code complexity and less resource requirements than 'use a validating xml parser', but I haven't done formal measurements of that. (yaml might be a reasonable alternative for people who dislike lisp and xml.) basically, xml annoys me on an aesthetic level, and it seems to me it's based on unsound philosophical assumptions, but since the whole computer world seems intent on using it... *shrug* it mostly makes me want to leave the computer industry, much like the dominance of Windows. but of course, this isn't relevant to anyone else. if someone with time and motivation wants to implement and maintain an xml schema for debugger gui<->backend interaction, that's probably a good thing. --