Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linus Torvalds: “I'm happily hacking on a new save format using ‘libgit2’”

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 265 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds: “I'm happily hacking on a new save format using ‘libgit2’”

#11

Post by babarock »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #4

I don't quite get Linus' problem with XML for document markup (for anything else - config files, build scripts - sure, XML is horrible). Does anyone know any more details about what his specific gripe is? For me, asciidoc (which looks very similar, conceptually, to markdown) suffers from one huge problem: it's incomplete. Substituting symbols for words results in a more limited vocabulary, if that vocabulary is to re…

For those who missed it, here's what Linus wrote in the comments:

"+Aaron Traas no, XML isn't even good for document markup.

Use 'asciidoc' for document markup. Really. It's actually readable by humans, and easier to parse and way more flexible than XML.

XML is crap. Really. There are no excuses. XML is nasty to parse for humans, and it's a disaster to parse even for computers. There's just no reason for that horrible crap to exist.

As to JSON, it's certainly a better format than XML both for humans and computers, but it ends up sharing a lot of the same issues in the end: putting everything in one file is just not a good idea. There's a reason people end up using simple databases for a lot of things.

INI files are fine for simple config stuff. I still think that "git config" is a good implementation."

Re: Linus Torvalds: “I'm happily hacking on a new save format using ‘libgit2’”

#13

Post by bananas »

I think this title is wrong.

Firstly some clarification - this appears to just be about the persistence format for his dive log. It was XML, now it's git based with plain text.

As someone who had to manage a system which worked with plain text files structured in a filesystem for a number of years in the 1990s, this is done to death already.

You now end up with the following problems: locking, synchronising filesystem state with the program, inode usage, file handles to manage galore and concurrency. All sorts.

Basically this is a "look I've discovered maildir and stuffed it in a git repo".

Not saying there is a better solution but this isn't a magic bullet. It's just a different set of pain.

Re: Linus Torvalds: “I'm happily hacking on a new save format using ‘libgit2’”

#15

Post by bhaak »

What's with all the XML hate? Of course, doing everything in XML is a stupid idea (e.g. XSLT and Ant) and thanks heaven that hype is over.

But if I want something that is able to express data structures customized by myself, usually with hierarchical data that can be verified for validity and syntax (XML Schemas or old-school DTD), what other options are there?

Doing hierarchical data in SQL is a bitch and if you want to transfer it, well good luck with a SQL dump. JSON and other lightweight markup languages fail the verification requirement.

Re: Linus Torvalds: “I'm happily hacking on a new save format using ‘libgit2’”

#16

Post by Sharlin »

bhaak wrote: post #15

What's with all the XML hate? Of course, doing everything in XML is a stupid idea (e.g. XSLT and Ant) and thanks heaven that hype is over. But if I want something that is able to express data structures customized by myself, usually with hierarchical data that can be verified for validity and syntax (XML Schemas or old-school DTD), what other options are there? Doing hierarchical data in SQL is a bitch and if you wan…

The issue is probably that 99.999% of all XML use cases don't use (or need) the verification aspect. For all of those, XML is overkill. Besides, surely it would be possible to design a verification layer on top of JSON, for instance - the fact that one does not currently exist does not mean that XML (and abuse of XML!) should not be criticized.

Re: Linus Torvalds: “I'm happily hacking on a new save format using ‘libgit2’”

#17

Post by _delirium »

Sharlin wrote: post #16
bhaak wrote: post #15

What's with all the XML hate? Of course, doing everything in XML is a stupid idea (e.g. XSLT and Ant) and thanks heaven that hype is over. But if I want something that is able to express data structures customized by myself, usually with hierarchical data that can be verified for validity and syntax (XML Schemas or old-school DTD), what other options are there? Doing hierarchical data in SQL is a bitch and if you wan…

The issue is probably that 99.999% of all XML use cases don't use (or need) the verification aspect. For all of those, XML is overkill. Besides, surely it would be possible to design a verification layer on top of JSON, for instance - the fact that one does not currently exist does not mean that XML (and abuse of XML!) should not be criticized.

People seem to prefer JSON, but I don't find it any better to hand-write/hand-edit than XML. If anything it's slightly worse, because it has more syntax edge cases.

Re: Linus Torvalds: “I'm happily hacking on a new save format using ‘libgit2’”

#19

Post by icebraining »

Sharlin wrote: post #16
bhaak wrote: post #15

What's with all the XML hate? Of course, doing everything in XML is a stupid idea (e.g. XSLT and Ant) and thanks heaven that hype is over. But if I want something that is able to express data structures customized by myself, usually with hierarchical data that can be verified for validity and syntax (XML Schemas or old-school DTD), what other options are there? Doing hierarchical data in SQL is a bitch and if you wan…

The issue is probably that 99.999% of all XML use cases don't use (or need) the verification aspect. For all of those, XML is overkill. Besides, surely it would be possible to design a verification layer on top of JSON, for instance - the fact that one does not currently exist does not mean that XML (and abuse of XML!) should not be criticized.

It does exist: http://json-schema.org/

Re: Linus Torvalds: “I'm happily hacking on a new save format using ‘libgit2’”

#20

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

adobriyan wrote: post #10
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #4

I don't quite get Linus' problem with XML for document markup (for anything else - config files, build scripts - sure, XML is horrible). Does anyone know any more details about what his specific gripe is? For me, asciidoc (which looks very similar, conceptually, to markdown) suffers from one huge problem: it's incomplete. Substituting symbols for words results in a more limited vocabulary, if that vocabulary is to re…

This link needs to be posted again and again and again. I'm sure quite a lot of people will easily recognize it. :^) Subject: Re: S-exp vs XML, HTML, LaTeX (was: Why lisp is growing) https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=comp.lang.li...

That's a wonderful rant - I particularly appreciate the digression into anti-bush rhetoric - but:

1. There's very little detail here; it's a nicely worded, emotionally charged piece that leaves a lot of detail unaddressed, e.g. "'I would like to hear why you think it is so bad, can you be more specific please?' If you really need more information, search the Net, please." That's not very helpful.

2. It argues for 'simpler' markup via the removal of attributes. Where possible, I totally agree, as at least hinted at in my original post. Sometimes, though, this would be impossible or unwieldy (e.g. HREF attribute on an A element).

3. Character entities vs. unicode - totally agree. Wherever possible, I use proper unicode characters rather than ugly character entities in my markup.

4. "But the one thing I would change the most from a markup language ... is to go for a binary representation." Linus would vehemently disagree on this point.

Post reply on HN