In this thread we show our love for XML

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<sentences>
  <sentence>
    <subjects>
      <subject>I</subject>
    </subjects>
    <verbs>
      <verb>Love</verb>
    </verbs>
    <objects>
      <object>XML</object>
    </objects>
  </sentence>
</sentences>

>>1,5
For single lines of text I much prefer using attributes instead of full tags. In this case it doesn't make much of a difference:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<sentences>
  <sentence>
    <subjects>
      <subject text="I" />
    </subjects>
    <verbs>
      <verb text="Love" />
    </verbs>
    <objects>
      <object text="XML" />
    </objects>
  </sentence>
</sentences>

But suppose we know in advance that each sentence has only one subject, verb and object. Compare this:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<sentences>
  <sentence>
    <subject>I</subject>
    <verb>Love</verb>
    <object>XML</object>
  </sentence>
</sentences>

to this:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<sentences>
  <sentence subject="I" verb="Love" object="XML" />
</sentences>

Much more human readable and writeable. I use human-written XML input in some of my projects and I much prefer writing things this way.

>>40
What's so awesome about Haskell is how the code is completely self-documenting, you don't have to write any comments at all!  In fact, the only comments I add to the production systems are irrelevant funny quotes from books and movies.

>>42
o rly?

>>42
proof or stfu, I don't trust you, I write code for a living and I add comments, you're a liar.

>>42
omae monad!

>>42
One word, OH WAI-

>>44
Proof, eh?  Sure:

h = T (where h is the idea that Haskell is auto-documenting)
 h / 0 = T / 0
 Inf = Inf

QED.

XML FUCK THAT IM INTO SXML.
(html (head (title "LOL SXML")) (body (:bgcolor red) (p "FUCK YOU")))

>>48
ENJOY YOUR AIDS

(html
  (head
    (title "lol sxml"))
  (body bgcolor :red
    (p "fuck you")))

>>49
ENJOY YOUR XML

>>50
oh wow did someone just PWN XML?? I THINK THEY DID.

>>51
more like owned the OP!

>>52
cat shit vs dog shit

>>50
I like that so much more than XML. It's saner, simpler, and less verbose.

>>54
its still shit

>>55
its actually much more useful in more than just improved syntax, you should read some more before making silly assumptions

>>55
explain why or shut up.

html
  head
    title "lol forced indentation"
  body bgcolor=pink
    p "ONE WORD"

>>58
pythan faggot GTFO.

char[4] 'html'
dword 2
char[4] 'head'
dword 1
char[4] 'titl'
dword 1
char[4] 'utf8'
dword 10
char[10] 'binary unf'
char[4] 'body'
dword 2
char[4] 'styl'
dword 2
char[4] 'rgb '
dword 0xFFFF00
char[4] 'back'
dword 1
char[4] 'rgb '
dword 0xFF00FF
char[4] 'para'
dword 1
char[4] 'utf8'
dword 11
char[11] '*fapfapfap*'

>>59
it's not python, u fagget

>>61
yeah but he who wrote it IS a python faggot
OH SO ARE YOU .

>>62
No, that syntax was not Pythonic.

>>63
Forced indentation of XML, thread over.

__sage__

JSON > XML

You can make XML more awesome but adding more Xs. Remember, Xs are cool. So XML -> XXX

>>67
You gave me an awesome idea! Let's do XML over XML, for more enterprise-ready parsing and universal data sharing! For example, <a href="dicks">...</a> becomes:

<element>
  <name>a</name>
  <attribute>
    <name>href</name>
    <value>dicks</value>
  </attribute>
  <contents>
  ...
  </contents>
</element>

OMG this is superenterprise fap fap fap!1one

Then we can do XML over XML over XML, and get XXX!

>>68

I chuckle'd

>>68
Wooah, I just got a massive raging boner on reading this.
It's true, XML on XML on XML = XXX

>>68
Looks like the "xml" that Apple uses for its property lists.

old thread is old

Bringing /prog/ back to its people