Re: future ALSA development

[mru@users.sourceforge.net]

Joern Nettingsmeier <nettings@folkwang-hochschule.de> writes:

>  >>other people might propose XML.  then it becomes to a question whether
>  >>alsa-lib should rely on other libs...
>  >
>  >
>  > I think that XML is too overkill for our purposes.
>
> true if you only consider alsa. but on most systems, libxml2 is there
> anyway. <underwear type="asbestos">and imvho xml is less a matter of
> taste than lisp.</underwear> and xml is way easier to handle in other
> contexts (i'm thinking of auto.configuration stuff etc.)
> otoh, the embedded guys will probably not like it, but then memory is
> becoming cheaper by the minute, and its additional size will be a moot
> point in the very near future.

IMO, xml is a piece of bloated, error-prone hypeware.  Comparing it to
LISP doesn't make sense at all.  LISP is a programming language,
whereas XML is a markup language, albeit one that has come to be
misused a great deal.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@users.sf.net



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner.
Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission!
INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php