removal of cruft from D (OT: XML rant n' rage, YAML)

[Chad J]

Justin Johansson wrote:
> 
> I wasn't thinking XSLT particularly.
> 
> By XML aware, I meant awareness of (any parts of) the wider XML
> ecosystem in general and W3C related specs so not just XML syntax but
> including XML Schema Datatypes for example.  Obviously XSLT is something
> that would be implemented in a library rather than being reflected in a
> language but such a library would be easier to implement in a language
> that acknowledged XML Schema Datatypes.
> 
> In the case of XML syntax, note that both Scala and JavaScript support
> XML syntax at the language level (the latter via the E4X extension to
> JavaScript).  At some point in the (distant) future, D might support XML
> syntax in the language in similar fashion to Scala, who knows.  I
> understand that D1 has some ability to embed D code in HTML.  Though
> I've never used it, and considering that (X)HTML is an application of
> XML, this is at least an acknowledgement by D that HTML exists!
> 
> My point basically boils down to this.  We all accept IEEE Standard for
> Floating-Point Arithmetic (IEEE 754) as the basis for the binary
> representation of floating point data and nobody is going to argue
> against that.  In terms of the evolution of standards, XML Schema
> Datatypes does for the lexical representation of common datatypes
> (numeric and string data), what IEEE 754 does for floating point data at
> the binary level.
> 
> In the future I believe that PL's will implicitly acknowledge XML Schema
> Datatypes as much as vernacular PL's implicitly acknowledge IEEE 754
> today and that's why I took shot at your comment "Useless hindrance to
> future language expansion".
> 
> Cheers
> Justin

Thank you for the well written explanation.

Now then, if XML is the way of the future, just shoot me now.

I know ActionScript 3 also supports XML syntax at the language level.
When I first learned this I likely had a huge look of disgust on my
face.  Something like (╬ ಠ益ಠ).  Requiring a general purpose programming
language to also implement XML is just too harsh for too little gain.
Wrap that stuff in qoutes.  D even has a rather rich selection of string
literals; too many if you ask me.  I really do not understand why XML
should have such a preferred status over every other DSL that will find
itself embedded in D code (or any other PL for that matter).

In other news, I discovered YAML.  I haven't used it enough to see if it
has a dark side or not, but so far it looks promising.  It doesn't make
my eyes bleed.  That's a good start.  It may just be worthy of me using
it instead of rolling my own encodings.

And yes, I'll roll my own encodings if I damn well feel like it.  I plan
on using D for hobby game programming in the future, so I have no desire
to drink the over-engineered koolaid that is XML.  I'll swallow SVG, but
only in small doses.  SVG is actually useful because Inkscape exists,
but I don't really intend to implement all of it, since SVG is also
quite over-engineered.

Ah, that felt good.

- Chad