It looks readable enough. I liked the raw strings. I didn’t see mention any start / end of document markers. That feels a bit strange, and I would be concerned about its inability to detect that the file or stream has been truncated.
I find it most reminiscent of troff, with somewhat more human-friendly syntax. The main difference with troff is the addition of the braces for nesting.
I thought the “extensible” part was about its dynamism, a reaction to passing structs around and having to conform to pre-determined ABIs or something. The XML specification doesn’t even support namespaces (tho they’re now part of XML as determined by usage.)
The XML specification is a bit over-modular, but it does contain references to the namespace spec, which does exist https://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/ it’s not just a “determined by usage” thing
Pretty neat. I’ve been gently pushing to use it at work. We’re on YAML right now for human-readability, but we’re using tags and other delights, which makes me think what we really want is something more complex. (Significant whitespace is not a concern for my teammates.)
i like this, mentally filing it away for the next time i need a text based serialization format. seems like a fun language to bake into the stdlib of a personal programming language project
So, s-expressions, but the brackets are curly and after the first atom.
looks like s-expressions without () but {} when nesting is needed. Find it puzzling it’s not mentioned in the FAQs.
Curl the programming language is sorta like that, which is interesting.
It looks readable enough. I liked the raw strings. I didn’t see mention any start / end of document markers. That feels a bit strange, and I would be concerned about its inability to detect that the file or stream has been truncated.
It fails to have any xml-like semantics. Seems mostly JSON-like.
I find it most reminiscent of troff, with somewhat more human-friendly syntax. The main difference with troff is the addition of the braces for nesting.
My thoughts exactly.
It has nesting and named nodes which can have children and properties. That’s the basics of xml. What semantics are you thinking of?
XML is all about the eXtensible, which is primarily namespaces.
I thought the “extensible” part was about its dynamism, a reaction to passing structs around and having to conform to pre-determined ABIs or something. The XML specification doesn’t even support namespaces (tho they’re now part of XML as determined by usage.)
The XML specification is a bit over-modular, but it does contain references to the namespace spec, which does exist https://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/ it’s not just a “determined by usage” thing
Pretty neat. I’ve been gently pushing to use it at work. We’re on YAML right now for human-readability, but we’re using tags and other delights, which makes me think what we really want is something more complex. (Significant whitespace is not a concern for my teammates.)
i like this, mentally filing it away for the next time i need a text based serialization format. seems like a fun language to bake into the stdlib of a personal programming language project