datalist

No, I do not but I wish :)

I got interested in D a few years ago and purchased quite a good introductory book about it, written by the author of the language (https://www.bookdepository.com/The-D-Programming-Language-An...).

Overall it really seems a lovely language and - to me - what C++ should have actually been and - to a certain degree - almost as if it was a love child of C and Java :).

Unfortunately it is quite a niche and I never came around to actually use it, be it professionally or on my own. Still, I'd love if I once had the opportunity to use it.

I am afraid you are still mixing two unrelated things. The document format and potential libraries.

Yes, XML libraries tend to be unnecessarily complex (particularly with Java) and are often a drag, but this is not about about the format. Even the bureaucracy you mentioned is not inherent to XML itself. You can perfectly use XML without schema insanity, just like JSON.

XML is quite more verbose (which might help in a rebuild you mentioned) but is generally quite alike to JSON. Even the performance and memory issues you mentioned are not specific to XML but rather to libraries which went bananas.

My point is JSON is not more popular these days because it is inherently superior. JSON is more popular because it was the default choice in a JavaScript environment and - probably - because those who implemented JSON libraries were a tad more sane than their XML counterparts.

I believe I was a bit too quick in just dismissing your response, my apologies, so let me please elaborate on why I believe you are wrong

- "Obviously conforms"? XML does too. Both are hierarchical document formats. Their syntax is different, thats about it.

- "Considerably slimmer"? That is arguable, I'd say "slightly". But yes, JSON is somewhat leaner. So what, that doesnt make it intrinsically superior.

- "Legibility"? That mostly depends on the formatting. Especially in today's world and its minifiers essentially nothing is legible any more. JSON, being less verbose, might have a fraction of an advantage here, but again thats about it.

Examples? Sure. Would you argue the following JSON document is legible?

  [{"_id":"5e120086aa2b07d5af7ddda3","index":0,"guid":"ae823405-6305-4c29-a8d3-429423e0ff7c","isActive":false,"balance":"$2,616.37","picture":"http://placehold.it/32x32","age":36,"eyeColor":"green","name":"Lyons Pollard","gender":"male","company":"TECHMANIA","email":"lyonspollard@techmania.com","phone":"+1 (870) 441-2429","address":"722 Truxton Street, Osmond, Indiana, 1802","registered":"2018-03-14T10:56:23 -01:00","latitude":43.427473,"longitude":-78.16956,"tags":["id","voluptate","velit","sit","duis","velit","proident"],"friends":[{"id":0,"name":"Elba Fernandez"},{"id":1,"name":"Rosalinda Morrow"},{"id":2,"name":"Hannah Leblanc"}],"favoriteFruit":"apple"}]

Didnt think so. In comparison its XML equivalent is pretty legible

  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <root>
    <element>
      <_id>5e120086aa2b07d5af7ddda3</_id>
      <address>722 Truxton Street, Osmond, Indiana, 1802</address>
      <age>36</age>
      <balance>$2,616.37</balance>
      <company>TECHMANIA</company>
      <email>lyonspollard@techmania.com</email>
      <eyeColor>green</eyeColor>
      <favoriteFruit>apple</favoriteFruit>
  
      <friends>
        <friend>
          <id>0</id>
          <name>Elba Fernandez</name>
        </friend>
        <friend>
          <id>1</id>
          <name>Rosalinda Morrow</name>
        </friend>
        <friend>
          <id>2</id>
          <name>Hannah Leblanc</name>
        </friend>
      </friends>
  
      <gender>male</gender>
      <guid>ae823405-6305-4c29-a8d3-429423e0ff7c</guid>
      <index>0</index>
      <isActive>false</isActive>
      <latitude>43.42747</latitude>
      <longitude>-78.16956</longitude>
      <name>Lyons Pollard</name>
      <phone>+1 (870) 441-2429</phone>
      <picture>http://placehold.it/32x32</picture>
      <registered>2018-03-14T10:56:23 -01:00</registered>
  
      <tags>
        <tag>id</tag>
        <tag>voluptate</tag>
        <tag>velit</tag>
        <tag>sit</tag>
        <tag>duis</tag>
        <tag>velit</tag>
        <tag>proident</tag>
      </tags>
  
    </element>
  </root>

Yes, more verbose - which I already addressed - but nonetheless self-explanatory. One advantage of JSON? Additionally to strings its core syntax defines three additional value types, whereas in XML everything is a string.

XML and JSON are so similar they could be considered siblings. JSON's popularity does not stem from being "a cleaner expression of what xml was trying to represent" because everybody using it made a careful evaluation and decided after long deliberation that JSON is "Occam's razor", but simply because it is the default choice in JavaScript and comes with native support, whereas XML support is pretty shaky in Vanilla JavaScript.

That is why - to adopt the same confident attitude ;)

Would I slightly favour JSON over XML these days? Yes, probably slightly, but certainly not because it was better or offered things XML didnt.

I believe you are wrong, but let us simply agree to disagree ;)

If you have a malformed JSON, that will break too. So the issue is not with the syntax but - if - with the tools, respectively as often with the - pardon for being blunt - people's incompetence.

I beg to differ.

In its raw form XML is not much different from JSON. It is more verbose (e.g. start and end delimiters versus a name tag in JSON) but overall very similar, if not identical in terms of features. Schemas are a different topic.

Reading and writing with automated tools very much depends on these tools and not so much on the syntax itself.

JSON is slightly slimmer and less verbose but does not really offer any fundamental advantages. Both syntaxes are very similar. The reason why JSON is more popular nowadays can be most likely found its relatively close ties to JavaScript and JavaScript's success in web development.

Nothing against Kotlin, but please spare us the Kotlin hype. Groovy was streamlining Java long before Kotlin even had a name.

Thats not Java. These are the wet dreams of some CS graduates who fell in love with Spring and Hibernate and take rough OOP guidelines to extremes.

Nobody - NOBODY! - used to write such Java code in the 2000s, at least the early ones. This insanity slowly started around 2005 and then really took off late 2000s and then particularly 2010s.

Again, thats not Java.

Groovy did so long before that ;)

The entire argument is ludicrous and hypocritical. I am surprised such an obviously sexist idea makes it even into anything that reaches more than a handful of people, but then it shouldnt surprise these days.

Why do these two need to be related in the first place?

First of all, the media you mentioned does not even rant against immigrants. Second, there actually are certain reasons for these rants.

But again, this is unrelated to Assange and does not need to be mixed up. All of which is happening to Assange is a disgrace but unlikely to change as it is the will of the people in power.

Instead of storming Area 51 people should gather and storm Belmarsh to liberate Assange. Not going to happen either of course.

> But there is no super secret MakeFirefoxSlow.js in Google Docs. There never was.

https://fortune.com/2018/07/25/youtube-slow-mozilla-firefox-...

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/18/google_monopoly_abu...

I still stand by my previous statements.

Mozilla certainly improved on overall performance with Quantum, but to say Firefox was unusuable is actually not even an exaggeration - I stand corrected on this - but plain wrong.

AFAIK, Chrome did introduce the multi-process approach but that touched tabs only peripherally. Tab management itself has not improved.

First, this is an exaggeration in my opinion. Second, this is only peripherally related to tabs and how they are used.

I have used CyanogenMod, and later LineageOS, for quite some time and was pretty pleased with it.

The problem is it seems to be past its prime. It dropped support for mainstream phones more and more and is currenly limited to either very old handsets or rather exotic manufacturers.

The most recent Samsung S series they support is from 2014, almost six years ago. CM and LOS were also popular on the Nexus 4 and 5, these were completely dropped as well and even the successors do not have a recent Android version at this point.

All of this coupled with long delays of moving to the most recent Android version. Many phone were still on Nougat LOS, when there was already Pie.

True, they kind of managed to semi-port that but it still rather is a crutch.

My point was though the claim Chrome fundamentally improved how we use tabs simply is nonfactual.

> Remember when people had a conniption about Chrome auto updating and now literally all software does that?

Sure. And is that a good thing? From a developer's perspective maybe, from a user's not so much.

> Remember when using tabs was kind of a chore and not really worth the effort?

No, I dont. Tabs have not fundamentally changed since they were introduced in NetCaptor some twenty years ago. Yes, you can drag and drop them now, but thats basically it.

If anything, tabs have de-evolved. Chrome never allowed any customisation and Firefox stopped supporting it (e.g. vertical tabs) when they switched to "Quantum".

> Remember when the chrome of a browser would take up 10% of the screen? Remember when browsers had an address bar and a search bar?

If that was Google's only achievement ;)

> Remember when installing extensions was a huge, painful process?

I dont. Installing extensions was never any of that. It was always fairly straightforward in Firefox and has not really changed since the first versions, again some twenty years ago :)

Could be anything. Routing, storage, and so on

IIRC Cloudflare had half their ASN hijacked recently.

For these three countries it is Firefox with the largest market share.

True, once more we have reached and voluntarily embraced browser monoculture.

We are the minority at this point.

True, one of them is document.registerElement()

Quite the opposite story of https://medium.com/@neroux/linux-why-dont-you-love-me-30cd05...

> No other country makes you take off your shoes.

No offence, but that is simply not true.

At European airports one is not always, but regularly, asked to take off his shoes.

You addressed my second point but not the first nor the third.

Mockery or not, it happened and still happens. Only two years ago in Cincinnati. That was technically not "punishment" but the result was the same.

My main point is not whether or to prosecute other animals, but that humans live double standards.

First, there are plenty of example where other animals do grasp these concepts very well.

Second, as I have shown earlier humans already do "prosecute" animals for such behaviour. So why would argue that "absurd hubris" should be applied in these cases?

Third, my point was not to start "prosecuting" other animals, but that humans do not follow their own standards.

Extending to other animals the same rights humans enjoy is not silly but logical and long overdue.

And your example of prosecuting a lion is unfortunately already reality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(elephant)

Saying a being is a "natural resource" is just despicable. Someone else could say that with equal ease about your family. Would you like that?

> When we did some changes to our iptables, we had to recompile the kernel, because every match or target was requiring a kernel module.

What?

> Very few does anything serious on it. A desktop OS on the other hand has access to the very most sensitive information

Thats why more and more people use it exclusively for everything, including online banking.

One can only hope that is sarcasm