Ryan Rawson <>
Thu May 4 09:14:16 CEST 2006

Ironically enough I would disagree with the statement:

"While the XML series of languages had the goal of having a human
readable format the UBF languages take the opposite view and provide a
"machine friendly" format."

I would state that XML is machine readable, and not as much human
readable.  The original specs for the XML described in great detail
how easy it was to write a parser for it.  While most people don't
think XML parsers are very simple, they are better than, say HTML or

But again, i would say that we need more human readable formats. 
That's why JSON has become so popular.

I know some people who are using JSON and Erlang, that is working out
well for them.  Why UBF?


On 5/3/06, Bertil Askelid <> wrote:
>    A couple of years ago, Joe Armstrong was working on and idea he
>    called UBF:
>       UBF is a language for transporting and describing complex data
>       structures across a network.
>       http://www.sics.se/~joe/ubf/site/home.html
>    I'm wonder if this came to any extended use in the Erlang Community?

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list