Comment by toyg

Comment by toyg 20 hours ago

4 replies

Nah, we still have all those issues and more.

The hard truth is that XML lost to the javascript-native format (JSON). Any JavaScript-native format would have won, because "the web" effectively became the world of JavaScript. XML was not js-friendly enough: the parsing infrastructure was largely based on C/C++/Java, and then you'd get back objects with verbose interfaces (again, a c++/java thing) rather than the simple, nested dictionaries that less-skilled "JS-first" developers felt at ease with.

mpyne 20 hours ago

The thing is, JSON is even superior in C++.

It's a dumber format but that makes it a better lingua franca between all sorts of programming languages, not just Javascript, especially if you haven't locked in on a schema.

Once you have locked in on a schema and IDL-style tooling to autogenerate adapter classes/objects, then non-JSON interchange formats become viable (if not superior). But even in that world, I'd rather have something like gRPC over XML.

em-bee 19 hours ago

that's the thing, XML should have become javascript native so that we could write inline HTML more easily like JSX from react allows us to do.

  • lmz 14 hours ago

    It did somewhat. It was called E4X.

    • em-bee 7 hours ago

      more like it almost did. bummer. thanks for the pointer. sad to find out that the attempt was made but rejected. i wonder why.