From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Linas Vepstas Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Web services on guile Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 20:17:26 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1274559628.3733.37.camel@romel-compaq> Reply-To: linasvepstas@gmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1274663880 21940 80.91.229.12 (24 May 2010 01:18:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 01:18:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 24 03:17:59 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OGMIm-0004WD-60 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 May 2010 03:17:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56172 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OGMIk-0004UB-LS for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 May 2010 21:17:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=34997 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OGMIg-0004U5-6I for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 23 May 2010 21:17:51 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OGMIe-0006rP-9i for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 23 May 2010 21:17:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-yw0-f178.google.com ([209.85.211.178]:50304) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OGMId-0006rF-Ko for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 23 May 2010 21:17:48 -0400 Original-Received: by ywh8 with SMTP id 8so2008931ywh.6 for ; Sun, 23 May 2010 18:17:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:reply-to :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; bh=mWgb7mPQx3U7FywPGTB15Up/sm57OeKKU7898MgBQgM=; b=x0yAcgTrZSmLaKO8MbM8Mik82GP+OyjqULErWAL+phjup592wz+tSmdarJu3gfkIUa XYJxDyy+CswrrndAH6hCm6TXTYBMdwh41jgjMn3xf54sKUajL9IhLQmhfG0XtqILOP2K BpCcZd2LWl8MFuoox1P/dS2AOd5YH+zcbf0AQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; b=JSNH63xiOZrw3Trd2vt0Wbo8WMXDsS66ct+hhhMWKjDf6Ou+GqxORIftDUYS5baoaj 9MudlVfQs3OYWE0XDFjIIQB2M5gQEAgserDk42AeTaqb7vj761uT4b0jLo7igtsGwzki DSJo301/WYFEyH3EJL9X7tjQ48aQ3dcoOQ9zI= Original-Received: by 10.101.192.24 with SMTP id u24mr5610458anp.181.1274663866353; Sun, 23 May 2010 18:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.100.250.13 with HTTP; Sun, 23 May 2010 18:17:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:7803 Archived-At: On 23 May 2010 16:16, Andy Wingo wrote: > On Sun 23 May 2010 11:25, Sascha Ziemann writes:. > > I would agree, FWIW. I wanted to implement XML-RPC at one point in > tekuti, but decided not to after looking at the spec. An s-expression > serializer/unserializer is fairly simply to write, you avoid > distribution problems that way, and you also avoid impedance mismatches. I've sometimes liked to say that whoever invented XML had gotten an F in college when studying LISP, although perhaps they never studied lisp at all. I've never really figured out whether I'm being a troll when I say that, or not. FWIW, I've worked with a data exchange format that has both an XML and a scheme/guile version. Running the scheme version of the dataset through guile-1.8 (and passing it into the C++ system that needs the data) is 3x faster than running it through the libxerces C++ XML parser. (I've got detailed speeds & feeds numbers if anyone cares) The website for libxerces says its "high performance, modular, scalable", which is either a bald lie hallucinated by the maintainers, or it's true, and a testament to how slowwww XML fundamentally is. If you want to be vaguely standards-interoperable, JSON is worth a look, its pretty simple & yet powerful too. Never used it in any data-intense situation, though. --linas