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

[Travis Boucher]

Chad J wrote:
> 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

Face it, XML is a text base markup language, not a programming language. 
  Text is for strings, and belong in quotes.  I don't care if the 
underlying data is a structure, or some logical construct which pretends 
to be code.

XML is not a programming language.  We should not be hindered by it.  I 
do not want to have to & codes for extended characters either. 
Also, D is targeted at being a system level programming language.  XML 
does not belong in system level code (yes redhat, I am glaring at you).

We already have standards which we follow, including UTF-8/16/32.  If 
you want a to standardize the way we represent numbers beyond the way we 
are doing it, then we might as well implement full localization and 
binary formatted source code.  I guess my rant is simple, XML is XML, D 
is D, mixing them is stupid.