On 12 sept. 05, at 00:50, Ralf Lammel wrote:
- XML wasn't mentioned in your message. I wonder whether they discuss it in the actual thread. (Yes, you might be saying XML is not the same
Yes, fowler mentionned XML: "XML has its uses, but isn't exactly easy to read. We could make it easier to see what's going on by using a custom syntax. Perhaps like this:" I dont think XML is a good idea for files that are managed/edited by humans. Of course the job of the programmer is easier when the file is coded in XML, but I think the user prefer simpler files with a custom syntax, and the user is the king. I am a programmer and personnaly I dont want to code my haskell code in XML, so I presume it is the same for the user with configuration files.
language as you are programming in, but it so easy to process XML in many languages, and one uses XSD for the DSL syntax). In fact, in Haskell I would strongly consider using HaXML or similar technology for non-trivial configuration problems. XML makes configuration also more portable. In reality, I don't see much value in using the programming language syntax for representing the configuration information. This makes it only harder to process those configurations with other tools.
Well except if your programming langage is lisp in which case parsing the configuration file is just a call to read.
Ralf