[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:
> One of the promises of XML is "no more small languages". I've just
> spent a week worth of evenings reading fvwm*(1) manual pages to figure
> out a feature in it config file format. I kept wishing it had been
> XML, because most of the time I wasted I spent figuring out the
> syntax.
Moderately-relevant trivia: In er 1998 or so I did a keynote at the
second-ever Perl conference, on the subject of XML and perl, perl having
just received its first implant of XML technology. I cast about for how
to bring syntax-design issues home to a bunch of perl hacks, and
eventually took a tour through the config files of a linux system,
showing how even excellent software like inetd can feature miserable
syntax in its config files. I used half a dozen different examples
which I forget, but I remember that I built up to fvwm as the example of
ultimately horrible syntax - its config file combines positional
parameters, function-like notation, continuation-line markers, and IIRC
m4 macro processor dung. It's outstandingly bad, and I got a
substantial proportion of the audience roaring with laughter. The
message for the crowd was that if XML helps us get out of the business
of designing syntax, that might be a win.
Having said all that, the RNC syntax is dramatically better than any
plausible XML alternative. -Tim
|
