> XML structure does not map neatly into the data types you actually want to use.
> After that point, the serialization method does not matter anymore, and XML would have just be slower.
Considering I have mapped 3D objects to (a lot of) C++ objects containing thousands of facets under 12ms incl. parsing, sanity checking, object creation, initialization and cross linking of said objects on last decade's hardware, I disagree with that sentiment.
Regarding your first point, even without a schema, an XML shows its structure and what it expects. So JSON feels its hacked together when compared to XML in terms of structure and expressiveness.
It's fine for serializing dark data where people won't see, but if eyes need to inspect it XML is way way more expressive by nature.
Heck, you even need to hack JSON for comments. C'mon :)
> After that point, the serialization method does not matter anymore, and XML would have just be slower.
Considering I have mapped 3D objects to (a lot of) C++ objects containing thousands of facets under 12ms incl. parsing, sanity checking, object creation, initialization and cross linking of said objects on last decade's hardware, I disagree with that sentiment.
Regarding your first point, even without a schema, an XML shows its structure and what it expects. So JSON feels its hacked together when compared to XML in terms of structure and expressiveness.
It's fine for serializing dark data where people won't see, but if eyes need to inspect it XML is way way more expressive by nature.
Heck, you even need to hack JSON for comments. C'mon :)