66
The lost art of XML — mmagueta
(marcosmagueta.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2026
66 points (93.4% liked)
Programming
24699 readers
285 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The fact that json serializes easily to basic data structures simplifies code so much. Most use cases don't need fully sematic data storage much of which you have to write the same amount of documentation about the data structures anyways. I'll give XML one thing though, schemas are nice and easy, but high barrier to entry in json.
If both sides have a shared data model it's a good base model without further needs. Anything else quickly becomes complicated because of the dynamic nature of JSON - at least if you want a robust or well-documented solution.
If the sides don't have a common understanding of the data structure, no format under the sun will help.
The point is that there are degrees to readability, specificity, and obviousness, even without a common understanding. Self-describing data, much like self-describing code, is different from a dense serialization without much support in that regard.
Yeah, when the same API endpoint sometimes return a string for an error, sometimes an object, and sometimes an array, JSON doesn't help much in parsing the mess