Rick Pettit rpettit@REDACTED
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
> readable.

Not readable, but friendly.

Isn't it easier to parse:

  {string,"Hello world"}


  <string>Hello world</string>





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
pretty easy.

> 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 mailing list