Subject: Re: S-exp vs XML, HTML, LaTeX (was: Why lisp is growing) From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 23 Dec 2002 02:24:29 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * email@example.com (thelifter) | Yes, but as I already said, you can convert any Lisp form to XML | and vice-versa. I thought we had utterly destroyed this stupid argument when it is phrased in terms of Turing Equivalence. | Basically all you said is that XML is harder to parse. Ok, but it | isn't a pile of crap. I think it would be more fair to say: Why are you insiting so much on having other people approve of your personal opinion? | XML is a harder to parse S-exp, so it generates more overhead. | That's the disadvantage of using it. Otherwise it is ok. I think you need to realize that just because you have a personal need to feel that you do not engage in something idiotic and evil does not mean that it any less idiotic and evil. I think I may have to answer your previous question thoroughly. If you are not willing to accept that some people think that XML is the worst piece of shit to hit the computer fan in /ages/, that is OK, but that does not make those people go away, nor their arguments that uninventing XML would be about as beneficial to the world as unelecting George W. Bush. XML is in my view the result of idiots who take something good and destroy it by taking it too far. But more on that in another article. -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.