Vanadium posted:

Stealing links from HN: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4456438/how-can-i-pass-the-string-null-through-wsdl-soap-from-as3-to-coldfusion-web

ShoulderDaemon posted:

I think the XML-ish completely unhelpful response to that complaint is that in <foo>12345</foo>, the 12345 is obviously of type foo, and you have to know the context of the message if you want a more concrete interpretation.

Suspicious Dish posted:

Right, so the type data is out of band, which means that the logic that can be implemented by you by a generic XML parser becomes less and less, which means that "generic toolkits" invent their own hacks because people are lazy.

Thermopyle posted:

This is probably a coding horror in and of itself, but I can't stand XML and I can't really articulate any reason that an XML-defender couldn't give an answer of some sort to.

pseudorandom name posted:

There is one good use-case for XML: domain-specific text markup languages.

Nobody uses it for that.

Suspicious Dish posted:

Right. Text nodes are XML's most powerful feature, and everybody ignores it.

pokeyman posted:

I think I understand what you mean, but could you expand on this a bit? Why are text nodes XML's most powerful feature?

pokeyman posted:

It's awesome and is a superset of JSON but isn't as widely used.

TildeATH posted:

(And Javascript, I hated js, but that's another story...)

yaoi prophet posted:

code:

function Foo() {
    this.elems = [];
    this.push = this.elems.push;
}

foo = new Foo();
foo.push(1);
foo.elems.length == 0; // true

foo.elems.push(1);
foo.elems.length == 1; //true

Bonus points to anybody who knows where the hell the first 1 gets pushed.

DaTroof posted:

It gets pushed to foo, so foo.length is 1. But if you REALLY want to burn your noodle, tell me why that doesn't work but this does:

shrughes posted:

Because that's the way Javascript works?? Nothing there is a mystery.

pseudorandom name posted:

push operates on this, not this.elems, I'm not sure why this is surprising.

DaTroof posted:

If functions are first-class objects, those two snippets should have the same behavior. It's not a killer bug or anything, but it's still weird.

DaTroof posted:

Because push operates on this in the first example, but it operates on this.elems in the second.

pseudorandom name posted:

Well, yeah, you're calling this.elems.push() instead of this.push(). None of this is weird or surprising.

ToxicFrog posted:

Functions are first class objects but they aren't closures over their enclosing object; this is passed to the function at call time.

So:

code:

function Foo() {
    this.elems = [];
    this.push = this.elems.push;
}

foo = new Foo();
foo.push(1);       // this == foo
foo.elems.push(1); // this == foo.elems

Same function is called both times, but on different objects.

Suspicious Dish posted:

The this argument is whatever is on the left-hand side of the call. Unlike other languages where a.b.c(); can be decomposed into var f = a.b.c; f();, JS needs the qualification.

DaTroof posted:

And after that, it doesn't even seem weird anymore. Sheesh. Maybe I need some sleep.

Contero posted:

What do people think about Yaml? I haven't actually used it in a project yet, but it seemed nice enough.

Thermopyle posted:

This is probably a coding horror in and of itself, but I can't stand XML and I can't really articulate any reason that an XML-defender couldn't give an answer of some sort to.

pokeyman posted:

I think I understand what you mean, but could you expand on this a bit? Why are text nodes XML's most powerful feature?

quote:

it's actually better this way for future compatibility and, regardless, several customers already use it tihs way.

Contero posted:

yaoi prophet posted:

I like the repeating ICAgICAgICAg. I bet they're using EBC because the person who implemented their encryption doesn't know the first thing about block ciphers.