• rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      LOL. not far off

      They started out with something close to YAML. As the project moved forward, they found out they needed to represent logic with interlinked sections. They needed section 3, point a to link back to section 1 point 3, sub point 2. So they toyed with some assembly-like operations. Then they needed some inheritance. They really just slowly re-implemented the common applications of xml one at a time, it just had less brackets and <> symbols when they were done.

      • ulterno@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 hours ago

        it just had less brackets and <> symbols when they were done.

        Hence making the parser more inefficient than XML?

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          It wasn’t without some advantage. The client hating it didn’t bode well though

          • floofloof@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 hours ago

            The client hating it just means you’re smarter than them and should press on to help them outgrow their ignorance. It’s a good sign.

          • ulterno@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            YAML definitely felt less intimidating to me than XML, when I first saw them.
            But the YAML examples also had much less information in them than the XML ones.
            But not having to type all those brackets definitely helps. In case of XML, I am always looking to just get a GUI going for it instead, because typing it out feels cumbersome (I’m from C++)