Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin pmaupin at gmail.com
Mon Mar 1 20:59:13 CET 2010

On Mar 1, 1:37 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em... at nospam.invalid> wrote:
> There are in fact quite a few--json, yaml, .ini, xml, Python literals
> (http://code.activestate.com/recipes/364469-safe-eval/), s-expressions,
> actual Python code that the application can import, and so forth.

Yes, I know about those.

> The problem isn't that you're trying to invent a useless file format per
> se, but rather that in trying to get other people to learn it and use
> it, you're also trying to appropriate a chunk of the user community's
> scarce and precious brain cells without good justification.  Newbie
> designers are often lured into that and they're unfortunately (i.e. to
> the community's detrimtent) often more successful than they really
> should be.

Can't disagree with the statement about newbie designers.  On the flip
side, sometimes things wind up being defacto standards, simply because
nobody could be bothered to write a better one, and they have lots of
little niggling warts that also collectively take up a lot of time and
attention.  There is obviously a good balance somewhere.

> Your one complaint about yaml is that it's slow to parse.  Why do you
> care about the parsing speed of a config file?  If the existing
> implementation is too slow, why not write a faster one instead of
> designing yayaml?  Even yaml is excessive in my view.  "Yet another" was
> an ok plan when Steve Johnson started the trope by writing Yacc 30 years
> ago.  These days, don't do yet another without very convincing reasons
> for rejecting what is already there.

One of my complaints.  If you had read the document you would have
seen others.  I actually have several complaints about YAML, but I
tried to write a cogent summary.


More information about the Python-list mailing list