renzev@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.mlEnglish · 2 years agoAI's take on XMLlemmy.worldimagemessage-square131linkfedilinkarrow-up11.27Karrow-down125
arrow-up11.24Karrow-down1imageAI's take on XMLlemmy.worldrenzev@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.mlEnglish · 2 years agomessage-square131linkfedilink
minus-squareannoyed-onion@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up146arrow-down3·2 years agoI mean, it’s not wrong…
minus-squareSerinus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up21arrow-down2·2 years 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-up5·2 years 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