Thu May 4 16:21:26 CEST 2006
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:14:16AM -0700, Ryan Rawson wrote:
> 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
Not readable, but friendly.
Isn't it easier to parse:
In both cases the latter is clearly more verbose.
> 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
UBF shouldn't be any harder, and going back and forth from XML to UBF is also
> But again, i would say that we need more human readable formats.
> That's why JSON has become so popular.
Is readability really important? Is UBF unreadable?
> I know some people who are using JSON and Erlang, that is working out
> well for them. Why UBF?
I had a lot of fun playing with Joe's UBF contract checker. You can define
stateful protocols in UBF (you write a "contract") and plug them into a
contract checker (see Joe's download).
This provides a great way to test your protocol, and to catch protocol
violations in client and server (including timing problems IIRC).
> 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.
> > 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