@renzev@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.mlEnglish • 1 year agoAI's take on XMLlemmy.worldimagemessage-square130fedilinkarrow-up11.27Karrow-down121
arrow-up11.25Karrow-down1imageAI's take on XMLlemmy.world@renzev@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.mlEnglish • 1 year agomessage-square130fedilink
minus-square@Serinus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink21•1 year agoDisagree. I prefer XML for config files where the efficiency of disk size doesn’t matter at all. Layers of XML are much easier to read than layers of Json. Json is generally better where efficiency matters.
minus-square@Matriks404@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink4•1 year agoAren’t most XML parsers faster than JSON parsers anyway?
I mean, it’s not wrong…
Disagree. I prefer XML for config files where the efficiency of disk size doesn’t matter at all. Layers of XML are much easier to read than layers of Json. Json is generally better where efficiency matters.
TOML or bust
yes.
Aren’t most XML parsers faster than JSON parsers anyway?
Wishful thinking