[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Protocol Buffers - Why not use XML

• From: Arjun Ray <arjun.ray@verizon.net>
• To: "xml-dev@lists.xml.org" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
• Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:46:38 -0500

On Mon, 08 Feb 2016 20:52:36 -0500, Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@gmail.com>
wrote:

| Can anybody express an informed opinion to the question in the subject
| which was culled from the Protocol Buffer Google Developer Guide.
| 
| https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview as the ones
| written seem to have  an XML phobic slant.

I'm not sure "XML phobic" is accurate, although the authors do go
wrong in characterizing XML as a "mechanism for serializing structured
data", which is precisely where all the bad karma originates.  That
is, if the question is "a flexible, efficient, automated mechanism for
serializing structured data", then just about all of the time XML is
_not_ the answer. 

Phobia has nothing to do with it. On the contrary, far too many almost
instantly sclerotic systems - manifesting Erik Naggum's "When the
markup overhead exceeds 200%, when attributes values and element
contents compete for the information, when the distance between 99% of
the 'tags' is /zero/" - have already been built on faddish beliefs in
the imagined benefits of XML.  

Protobufs haven't swept the field, though.  There are AVRO, Thrift,
and others, making for interesting choices.  All of them are purpose
built for the problem domain - serialization of structured data - and
should be obviously prefered.

But how about marking up documents - where free flowing text and
annotations are the rule - with protobufs or any of the others?  

Apples and oranges. :-)
 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Protocol Buffers - Why not use XML
    • From: Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie>

• References:
  • Protocol Buffers - Why not use XML
    • From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@gmail.com>