RE: Is the binary file format dead?

[David Lee <dlee@calldei.com>]

Your argument is self-contradictory.

==== Quote: Roger
Of course, inside the computer there is no text (i.e., 'a', 'b', 'c', etc.) but only zeros and ones. So "text files" really means "a sequence of zeros and ones that we have agreed to represent an encoding of text".'
====

Therefore, Text Files are a kind of, not different from, binary files.

From there the rest of the discussion is meaningless as all binary files are "a sequence of zeros and ones that we have agreed to represent an encoding of <insert data type here>'





----------------------------------------
David A. Lee
dlee@calldei.com
http://www.xmlsh.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Costello, Roger L. [mailto:costello@mitre.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:58 AM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: [xml-dev] Is the binary file format dead?

Hi Folks,

In my mind, the universe of computer files falls into two categories:

1. Binary files
2. Text files

Of course, inside the computer there is no text (i.e., 'a', 'b', 'c', etc.) but only zeros and ones. So "text files" really means "a sequence of zeros and ones that we have agreed to represent an encoding of text". The illusion that a computer file contains text is so complete, we rarely realize that it is an illusion. Lots of tools have been created to support this illusion (perhaps a better word is "abstraction"; yes, that's the word I will use from now on), such as "text" editors and compilers. 

I think the text abstraction was one of mankind's most monumental achievements.

It makes me wonder why we would want computer files to be anything other than text files. There are such compelling advantages to the text abstraction: (1) ability to relate to a computer at a human level rather than a machine level - you can see the text, read it, make sense of it, (2) ability to create higher and higher levels of abstraction - "It's not just text, it's a "BookCatalogue". And there are many other advantages.

I understand that binary files are typically smaller. And smaller is often desirable. Fine.

But today's desktop computers have huge amounts of memory. Surely size is of little concern nowadays. And even if size is of concern, surely the ability to solve problems at a higher level of abstraction (as the text file format provides) is many orders of magnitude more important. Yes? Surely the binary format is a relic of past computing days and it is time to discard such antiquated things. Yes?

XML is text. Yea! 

Except for binary XML - EXI. 

JPEG files are binary. So is PDF. And GIF. And PNG. And many others. 

I'd like you to put on your prognostication hat: do you foresee the demise of the binary file format?

/Roger

 

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php