On Saturday, February 11, 2012 11:45:42 AM UTC-8, Arne Vajh?j wrote:
On 2/10/2012 12:25 PM, BGB wrote:
On 2/9/2012 4:54 PM, Arne Vajh?j wrote:
On 2/8/2012 11:10 PM, BGB wrote:
On 2/8/2012 7:14 PM, Arne Vajh?j wrote:
On 2/8/2012 8:49 PM, BGB wrote:
say, if one is using XML for compiler ASTs or similar (say, the XML is
used to represent a just-parsed glob of source-code), do they really
need any sort of schema?
I would expect syntax trees to follow certain rules and not be free
form.
well, there are some rules, but the question is more if a schema or the
use of validation would offer much advantage to make using it worth the
bother?...
Enforcing correctness of data is usually a good idea.
potentially, but checking against schemas isn't free.
Oh, yeah, micro-optimize that last $0.0000001 of performance.
Great thinking.
Checking against schemas isn't so expensive, either. You spout this drivel,
BGB, about "isn't free", but where are your numbers? Show us reality, dude -
exactly how "not free" is schema validation, under what loads, on what
platforms? Hm?
I thought not.
depending on the application, it could be hard to justify spending the
extra clock cycles (except maybe for debugging purposes or similar).
How many "extra clock cycles", and does it cost less than the damage your
development techniques cause?
One of the points is that you can validate during integration test
and if you encounter a problem but keep validation turned off otherwise.
And besides I would assume the big XML parser libraries to have
optimized the validation quite a bit.
Given that BGB is just spewing dream talk with zero or less than zero facts,
evidence or measurement behind it, it's pretty safe to dismiss his
"conclusions".
or such ...