What YAML engine do you use?

[Fredrik Lundh]

A.M. Kuchling wrote:

> IMHO that's a bit extreme.  Specifications are written to be detailed, so
> consequently they're torture to read.  Seen the ReStructured Text spec
> lately?

I've read many specs; YAML (both the spec and the format) is easily
among the worst ten-or-so specs I've ever seen.

ReST and YAML share the same deep flaw: both formats are marketed
as simple, readable formats, and at a first glance, they look simple and read-
able -- but in reality, they're messy as hell, and chances are that the thing
you're looking at doesn't really mean what you think it means (unless you're
the official ReST/YAML parser implementation).  experienced designers
know how to avoid that; the ReST/YAML designers don't even understand
why they should.

> But YAML seems to have started out with the goal of being human-writable,
> something you would write in Emacs, and that seems to have gotten lost; the
> format is now just as complicated as Restructured Text, but more cryptic
> (the URI namespacing for tags, for example), not really simpler than
> XML and in some ways weaker (e.g. only two encodings supported, more
> complicated escaping rules).

http://www.modelsmodelsmodels.biz/images/hmo033.jpg

</F>