* Nicholas Van Weerdenburg <vanweerd / gmail.com> [0115 18:15]:
 
> For the most part, I think XML and Java make a good fit. I'm more
> comfortable with xml for configuration files I don't right myself.
> Better error checking, schema validation, etc. And Java's verbosity
> makes XMLs verbosity comparitively less intrusive for configuring
> services, parameters, etc.

I think that's the clincher in a lot of the Java uses of XML.
If you can use a code generator to build classes from XML, you only have
to write XML, which is marginally less awful than having to write Java.....

I initially saw YAML as A Better XML and started writing everything I could
in it until someone pointed out that ruby isn't much more verbose than YAML, 
and it's easier to test and debug, so now I tend to write the data as ruby
in the first place.

Course if you need to talk to other systems these days you need to speak XML,
but that's no reason to infect all your code with it...

Similar ideas expressed here:

http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html

(ignore the p word there, just / down to "XML is not the answer")...

-- 
'In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people
very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.'
		-- The Guide
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns