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 <Bertil@REDACTED> 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.
> I'm wonder if this came to any extended use in the Erlang Community?
More information about the erlang-questions