Toml: Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language
github.com
Toml: Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language
1–10 of 204 posts
Re: Toml: Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language
#2I never really questioned the name, TOML, but I guess "Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language" works
Re: Toml: Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language
#3I never really questioned the name, TOML, but I guess "Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language" works
To me, there was nothing obvious about the double bracket syntax, e.g.:
[[designers]]
name = Guido
lang = Python
[[designers]]
name = Larry
lang = PerlRe: Toml: Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language
#4(2013)
Re: Toml: Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language
#5It's worth remembering that Tom abused his role as a founder of GitHub and resigned.
http://www.businessinsider.com/github-harassment-story-2014-...
https://blog.github.com/2014-04-21-results-of-the-github-inv...
Re: Toml: Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language
#6I never really questioned the name, TOML, but I guess "Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language" works
To me, there was nothing obvious about the double bracket syntax, e.g.: [[designers]] name = Guido lang = Python [[designers]] name = Larry lang = Perl
Yups. And making a whole datetime RFC part of the spec kind of broke with the "minimal" thing. But apart from that I totally prefer it over INF/YML/JSON/XML for many purposes.
Re: Toml: Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language
#7(2013)
v0.5.0 is a new release!
Changelog: https://github.com/toml-lang/toml/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#0...
Re: Toml: Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language
#8I never really questioned the name, TOML, but I guess "Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language" works
To me, there was nothing obvious about the double bracket syntax, e.g.: [[designers]] name = Guido lang = Python [[designers]] name = Larry lang = Perl
I agree about the double bracket syntax however I don't think that is part of the specification any more, instead nested structures use a dot notation inside single brackets. Both solutions do still feel like a hack though, but the dot notation is definitely less ugly.
That all said, for flatter schema's I do personally think TOML is more readable than it's JSON, YAML and XML counterparts. If there is one thing I did like about Windows back when I used to run it, it was the syntax of INI files (which TOML was heavily influenced by).
Ultimately though, there is no perfect solution for all problems.
Re: Toml: Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, there was nothing obvious about the double bracket syntax, e.g.: [[designers]] name = Guido lang = Python [[designers]] name = Larry lang = Perl
Yups. And making a whole datetime RFC part of the spec kind of broke with the "minimal" thing. But apart from that I totally prefer it over INF/YML/JSON/XML for many purposes.
I guess there's no way around that though, if you want dates to be first class members. Can't do "a bit of date".
Re: Toml: Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language
#10Hey, Tom here (creator of TOML). Fun to see TOML on HN again! Since I first wrote a (mostly) joke proposal for TOML 5 years ago, TOML has been adopted by a number of prominent projects such as Cargo, Hugo, Pipenv, and others.
TOML is especially well suited for projects that need a simple configuration file that maps unambiguously to a hash table. There are still some weaknesses in TOML that make it non-optimal for large, complex config, but I'm hoping to address that in a later version of the spec (perhaps 2.0).
Happy to answer any questions you all have about TOML!