No, but I do it for formats like HTML, CSS, JSON. My editor can assist me, but I don't need it. To a lesser degree, the same is true of Java, though I do admit to leaning much more heavily on my IDE for that.
> What is this obsession with hand-coding complicated formats :)
Well, part of it is that they're not all that complicated unless you're doing something fancy. Another part is almost certainly our (we as in developers) pride in being able to use nothing but vi installed on a decade-old operating system to get things done.
Downsides include:
XSS and malicious injection - users should be using markdown or provided an actual contentEditable HTML editor instead of a textarea. Like in GMail.
Syntax errors. How many times have you typed some JSON by hand and realized you forgot to balance some braces or add a comma, or remove a comma at the end of an object?
Complexity not that complicated, really? Basic C, HTML, CSS is not complicated. Advanced stuff is complicated. Forgetting a brace or a semicolon torpedoes the whole document. SQL is not complicated. Does that mean you want to write SQL by hand for production code?
Why don't you install a simple extension to vi like an html format adapter? I'm a developer too. But let me tell you what it sounds like when you say you want to use nothing but vi: that's like saying you want to be able to build robots using nothing but a hammer and some nails, and nothing else can be built that requires further abstraction or advancement where you can't do the same with a hammer.
And also keep in mind that not everyone is a developer. The fact that you like to keep esoteric syntax rules in your head for HTML, XML, CSS, Javascript, C++ and so on doesn't mean EVERYONE should have to. When it comes to CSV, it's not even a real standard. You have to keep in your head all the cross platform quirks, like \r\n garbage similar to how web developers need to keep in their head all te Browser quirks and workarounds.
All this... for some pride thing of being able to write text based stuff by hand.
I brought up RTF for a reason. No sane person should want to type .rtf or .docx by hand. So why HTML?
1) there are so many differences between browsers that you have to keep them all in mind when asking people to send you csv files, or generating them, etc. Such as for example \n vs \r vs \r\n and escaping them.
2) You have to keep in your head escape rules and exceptions, and balancing quotes and other delimiters.
3) The whole thing doesn't look human readable or easily navigable for a document of any serious complexity.
And what's the upside? If more people just used Excel or another spreadsheet program to edit these files, you won't face ANY of these issues. They would eventually converge on a standard format, like they did with HTML.
Disclaimer: I wrote a CSV parser
Compatibility horrors from people violating the standard will appear no matter what format you use. That's not fair to blame on the format.
> You have to keep in your head escape rules and exceptions, and balancing quotes and other delimiters.
CSV itself has newlines, commas, and quotations marks for special characters. That's extremely minimal. The only extra thing to keep in your head is "is this field quoted or not".
What set of escapes and delimiters could be simpler? Would you rather reserve certain characters, and abandon the idea of holding "just text" values?
> The whole thing doesn't look human readable or easily navigable for a document of any serious complexity.
> And what's the upside? If more people just used Excel or another spreadsheet program to edit these files, you won't face ANY of these issues. They would eventually converge on a standard format, like they did with HTML.
This sounds like you're arguing for a more complex format! I'm confused.
So again, what is a format that you call simple?
Ascii text format is simple.
Anything where you have arbitrarily complex structure, why not use a program to edit it? What is the downside of using the right tool for the job? Your text editor is a program. Why tunnel through text and manually edit stuff?
There's a lot of design room here.
https://www.lua.org/pil/2.4.html http://prog21.dadgum.com/172.html
I can no longer remember where I saw it (thought it was lua), but I heard the idea to use =[[ ... ]]= and =[[[ ... ]]]= as wrappers (a bit like the qq operator from perl). They can be nested and don't interfere, so =[[[ abc =[[ ]]= ]]]= is a legitimate string.
* shouldn't ≠ doesn't
I predict this will never happen under the principle of "good enough to use, bad enough to complain on HN." My point is that people keep suggesting ASCII delimiters as if it's some obvious solution that solves the entire problem, but it doesn't. People should instead be suggesting that text editors better support ASCII delimiters so that we can use them roughly as easily as we use commas today.
The only consistent thing about CSV is its ubiquity; other than that, it's a hairy, inconsistent mess that appears simple. (Source: having parsed millions of blobs that all identified themselves as CSV, despite being almost completely different in structure.)
CSV is comma separated. [1]
Valid YAML
foo: bar baz
foo: "bar" baz
foo: "bar baz"
foo: "bar baz
foo: bar baz"
From your link, it's quite clear that you should not assume any particular CSV file to follow any particular rules.
> Interoperability considerations: > Due to lack of a single specification, there are considerable differences among implementations. Implementors should "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others" (RFC 793 [8]) when processing CSV files. An attempt at a common definition can be found in Section 2....
> Published specification: > While numerous private specifications exist for various programs and systems, there is no single "master" specification for this format. An attempt at a common definition can be found in Section 2.
Section 2 states:
> This section documents the format that seems to be followed by most implementations:
If CSV were indeed always comma-separated, my hair would be at least 5% less gray. Alas, most programs emit semicolon-separated "CSV" in some locales (MS Office, LibreOffice, you-name-it-they-got-it).
Of course, I understand that your academic position "if it chokes the RFC-compliant parser, it's not a True CSV and should be sent to /dev/null" tautologically exists - but for some reason, users tend to object to such treatment (especially when they have no useful tools that would emit your One True Format for them).
TL;DR: there is no single standard fitting all the things that call themselves "CSV".
In other words, as soon as you start exchanging data, you'll get something that is complex, broken, or (most common case) both. Existence of a simple, consistent general format has not been conclusively proven impossible, but I have yet to see one in practice.
(Of course, everybody and their dog have cooked up simple data schemes, yes, but those are a) domain-specific, and b) not in widespread use.)