renzev@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.mlEnglish · 2 months agoAI's take on XMLlemmy.worldimagemessage-square132fedilinkarrow-up11.24Karrow-down122cross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.world
arrow-up11.22Karrow-down1imageAI's take on XMLlemmy.worldrenzev@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.mlEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square132fedilinkcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.world
minus-squareannoyed-onion@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up144arrow-down2·2 months agoI mean, it’s not wrong…
minus-squareSerinus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up22arrow-down2·2 months agoDisagree. I prefer XML for config files where the efficiency of disk size doesn’t matter at all. Layers of XML are much easier to read than layers of Json. Json is generally better where efficiency matters.
minus-squareMatriks404@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·2 months agoAren’t most XML parsers faster than JSON parsers anyway?
I mean, it’s not wrong…
Disagree. I prefer XML for config files where the efficiency of disk size doesn’t matter at all. Layers of XML are much easier to read than layers of Json. Json is generally better where efficiency matters.
TOML or bust
yes.
Aren’t most XML parsers faster than JSON parsers anyway?
Wishful thinking