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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,9983e856ed268154 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.66.86.6 with SMTP id l6mr2176967paz.1.1344976239491; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Path: c10ni115230pbw.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Shark8 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec? Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <6412cd0e-a1b2-4004-a80b-fa445bbbcf00@googlegroups.com> References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <502005b6$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <50203ca2$0$9512$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <502040c0$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <50677fa2-7f82-4ccc-8c56-161bf67fefe1@googlegroups.com> <44bb5c96-a158-41c1-8e7d-ae83b2c0aca1@googlegroups.com> <502a6ab7$0$9519$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.20.190.126 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1344976239 26574 127.0.0.1 (14 Aug 2012 20:30:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:30:39 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <502a6ab7$0$9519$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.20.190.126; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-08-14T13:30:38-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:11:56 AM UTC-6, Georg Bauhaus wrote: >=20 > Or, in other words, if programmers use XML as if it was > like program source text, XML turns out to be very different. Who said anything about source-text? The problem with XML, besides parsing,= is that it really does tend to spin out of control when you're using it. One of my college group-projects was a virtual notebook [using SVG wrapped = in XML for the 'pages'], written in Java. We were working with person/modul= e style and I had the save/load module; I got it all coded up and my module= was working pretty nicely but for some reason when we tried to integrate i= t into the program it suddenly wasn't working. Turns out the namespace attr= ibute had to be set. That's right the presence/absence of that single [opti= onal, according to the documentation, IIRC] attribute caused the whole thin= g to fail. > Wow. At least witty commentary compensates for the lack > of understanding of the basics of XML. What's there to understand when you're evaluating it as a container? Take config-files, they're usually much better stored in an INI file. About the only thing I can really envision XML being appropriate for, and t= his is likely a stretch, would be serialization of [OOP] objects where the= tag would be either an object or a primitive type, a primitive type being = self-closing and having a value attribute where the object-tag would enclos= e tags corresponding to its own fields (either object-tags or primitive-tag= s themselves)... of course that pretty much just described the text-format = DFM files Delphi uses (which I like more because of their readability and p= hilosophy of "if it's the default, don't save it" which is sadly missing fr= om a lot of config/state/obj serializations). >=20 > XML is not intended to be readable in the sense that Ada > was intended to be readable. Yes, it was; both were meant to be human readable. Though if you meant the emphasis of readability was not the same I would ag= ree: XML is skewed toward the machine away from the human, at least in use. > Readable in the case of XML > means something more plain, something more technical: > that anyone can read XML documents using a pair of > eyes and a program like "more". No knowledge of any other > language is required, no knowledge of bit patterns is required. And that's where XML often fails. Sure you "can*, as in might be able to, o= perate an XML file with a plain-text viewer -- but again, once there's any = real-life complexity, then the relevant information [the signal] is quickly= lost in a sea of noise. This is why INI files beat XML as config files: there is so little noise bu= ilt into the format of "sections containing key/value pairs." > Nor is XML intended for internal data formats. That doesn't stop people from doing so; I've seen it in web-programs and de= sktop apps (a lot more now that MS-Office's *.???x format is widespread).