Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface)

[Felix Lee <felix dot 1 at canids dot net>]

Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>:
> I think the main point behind XML is that it is human readable. Also,
> every XML developer knows how to read it. Meaning that, I believe it
> would take less time to learn how to read it, than some open source
> project's grammar. BTW, you don't even have to learn how to read it,
> because you don't have to parse it :) The only thing you need to know,
> is the spec.

xml always reminds me of a less-readable form of COBOL.  I have a
hard time spotting errors like 'wrong value' in xml, because it's
filled with a lot of visual noise that doesn't particularly help
humans or machines read it (similar to what Edward Tufte calls
'chartjunk').

> I can see that people are interested in writing front ends that parse the
> output of the MI. Why? Do the same people enjoy writing linked lists
> over and over again? Do you see my point? Parsing the output of MI is
> completely a waste of time. 

I don't know about anyone else.  it's not that I particularly
enjoy writing parsers, but xml triggers my 'big and bloaty'
reflex.  when efficiency isn't important, I tend to favor lisp
syntax, which to me is a lot more readable than xml.  and I feel
like 'include a lisp interpreter' is less code complexity and
less resource requirements than 'use a validating xml parser',
but I haven't done formal measurements of that.

(yaml might be a reasonable alternative for people who dislike
lisp and xml.)

basically, xml annoys me on an aesthetic level, and it seems to
me it's based on unsound philosophical assumptions, but since the
whole computer world seems intent on using it... *shrug* it
mostly makes me want to leave the computer industry, much like
the dominance of Windows.  but of course, this isn't relevant to
anyone else.

if someone with time and motivation wants to implement and
maintain an xml schema for debugger gui<->backend interaction,
that's probably a good thing.
--