From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,9983e856ed268154 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.205.130.14 with SMTP id hk14mr96245bkc.5.1345711084398; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 01:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.72.205 with SMTP id f13mr161829wiv.4.1345711083876; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 01:38:03 -0700 (PDT) X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 88.191.116.97 Path: m12ni126129bkm.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!7no38398853wig.0!news-out.google.com!n2ni272606629win.0!nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!nntpfeed.proxad.net!dedibox.gegeweb.org!gegeweb.eu!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec? Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:38:18 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <1dt9qbimr88yf$.1rx3ijvu1okdr$.dlg@40tude.net> References: <50353a25$0$6581$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <1x29v2l5crksa$.17qggd3ghy94c$.dlg@40tude.net> <746632025367360149.847942rm-host.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de> <19yh6raqplxd9$.ubx1vlm6le9i.dlg@40tude.net> <5035e4f9$0$6572$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2012-08-23T10:38:18+02:00 List-Id: On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:08:25 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > On 23.08.12 09:06, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> On 22 Aug 2012 20:29:13 GMT, Georg Bauhaus wrote: >> >>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote: >>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:59:36 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 22.08.12 19:44, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >>>>>>> I need to write many parsers if I can't use XML. I use data not >>>>>>>> generated by our programs. >>>>>> In that case this is irrelevant to the issue. Other programs use formats >>>>>> they do. If that requires parsing that is their problem. >>>>> >>>>> Next time I download a PDF from A Big Bank or from a corporation, >>>>> destined to be a PDF document, I'll tell them that it is their >>>>> problem if I need to parse it. >>>> >>>> Do you know a way to process PDF documents without parsing them? Then, do >>>> it! >>> >>> How is my parsing their problem? >> >> Who cares? >> >> You said that XML is necessary because PDF requires parsing as well as XML >> does. By this logic pigs can fly. > > I said that since there are multiple different source (Excel, PDF, ...) > I need *more* parsing. Wrong. That depends on what parsing the involved sources require. You imply that: n1 * P1 + n2 * P2 > (n1 + n2) * P1 for any P1 and P2. This is plain wrong. > If all sources use XML, the variety of parsers is reduced. I don't need parsers to exchange data: P1 = 0. >>> If they did use XML then my life would be easier. >> >> If they didn't it would be much easier. > > No, as Pascal Obry has expounded two days ago, He proposed XML for exchanging structured data. You already agreed in this thread that XML would be a poor performer there. > in the real, non-standard > world that some of us live in, we would not even enjoy the luxury of a > known file format such as Excel or PDF. In the real non-standard world there are requirements imposed on the application and there are solutions and decisions you are free to make. The point is straight and simple: when you are free to choose never ever use XML. There is no technical reason to choose XML. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de