Why isn't server-side web made with XML libs?
14 comments
One templating approach that takes HTML's tree structure more seriously is Haml. Its syntax (mostly) enforces valid output, so you don't have to worry about closing/matching tags etc. This also makes it very concise, and (since its indentation matches the HTML tree) extremely easy to scan & read. It's basically a DSL optimized for markup trees like HTML.
Composing a DOM by instantiating objects for each node sounds awful, but I think you're right that flat plain-text templates miss an opportunity to leverage HTML's tree-like structure. Haml does a great job exploiting that structure.
Composing a DOM by instantiating objects for each node sounds awful, but I think you're right that flat plain-text templates miss an opportunity to leverage HTML's tree-like structure. Haml does a great job exploiting that structure.
So you are correct that purely programmatically its a bit wonky to construct an XML document using a bunch of strings and then pass that to the client and pray that that your XML (HTML) is well formed enough.
I think the reason for why HTML construction is done the current way that it is is that it goes back to when most web companies had "software engineers" handling the system and "web developers/designers" who spruced up the data coming out of the system with HTML. The designers didn't know much deep programming per say but they knew HTML and would create HTML templates in plain text with placeholders to expose anything dynamic. Those templates would then be handed off to engineering whose sole concern was getting the system right and didn't really want to care about HTML. This workflow is also what gained PHP a lot of traction originally.
So ultimately I think stitching together HTML with strings makes the system a lot more accessible to semi-technical folks and its honestly probably a lot faster to do development by typing out HTML rather than building XML objects.
I think the reason for why HTML construction is done the current way that it is is that it goes back to when most web companies had "software engineers" handling the system and "web developers/designers" who spruced up the data coming out of the system with HTML. The designers didn't know much deep programming per say but they knew HTML and would create HTML templates in plain text with placeholders to expose anything dynamic. Those templates would then be handed off to engineering whose sole concern was getting the system right and didn't really want to care about HTML. This workflow is also what gained PHP a lot of traction originally.
So ultimately I think stitching together HTML with strings makes the system a lot more accessible to semi-technical folks and its honestly probably a lot faster to do development by typing out HTML rather than building XML objects.
Using DOM implementations like that quickly gets bloated and hard to debug, not to mention performance overhead from the DOM itself (e.g. PHP).
Personally, I tried working with HTML like that in PHP with a class that parsed HTML files into a hierarchical array which could be manipulated like:
$var['html']['body']['p']['strong'] = 'etc';
With support for attributes and CDATA and everything but no matter how seductive it may be from a programmer's point of view, it's always just more trouble than it's worth to work like that.
(I ended up just using that xml2array/array2xml crap to create XML trees for XSLT)
Personally, I tried working with HTML like that in PHP with a class that parsed HTML files into a hierarchical array which could be manipulated like:
$var['html']['body']['p']['strong'] = 'etc';
With support for attributes and CDATA and everything but no matter how seductive it may be from a programmer's point of view, it's always just more trouble than it's worth to work like that.
(I ended up just using that xml2array/array2xml crap to create XML trees for XSLT)
Death of a thousand cuts, then.
Sad.
Thanks for the input.
Sad.
Thanks for the input.
Another reason is that this style of programming makes it very difficult to improve your TTFB (time to first byte). If the entire document can be manipulated at any time, you can't start sending anything to the browser until all your processing is done. This means a lot of unnecessary buffering on the server side and ultimately a delay in pushing data to the client. Modern browsers do pretty well at rendering incomplete HTML, so the faster you can start sending data, the faster the page load will be perceived.
I actually didn't know web servers started sending packets before I was done with writing to the stream.
Interesting.
Interesting.
This depends on the configuration of both your web server and your application server. There's a good chance things won't work this way out of the box. But this is generally something that you want for high performance.
That code is crazy verbose; that's why you don't see people using it. Even JQuery-like wrappers would still be more verbose than templating. Stuff like E4X and XQuery is more concise but I think it came out after XML's reputation had already been destroyed.
Ok, interesting response, thank you.
But there's a point I'd like to be clarified, if possible: it's not the first time I read that XML is bad in some abstract way, so I'd really be interested in knowing how was XML's rep "destroyed"?
But there's a point I'd like to be clarified, if possible: it's not the first time I read that XML is bad in some abstract way, so I'd really be interested in knowing how was XML's rep "destroyed"?
An important one is that XML does not map cleanly to any programming language's typical data structures, even those that explicitly support it. It always turns into an elaborate object hierarchy with awkward query syntax. The combination of unique named string-only attributes with ordered, non-unique named child objects is awkward and ambiguous (i.e. should that property be an attribute, or a child?). Contrast for example with JSON, which translates directly into arrays and hashes, structures available in any decent language.
E.g. you have <user name="john" address="123 Oracle Road"></user>
Now you decide you need multiple addresses per user. Do you: a) invent an ad-hoc string serialization scheme for the address="" property, or b) completely restructure your XML into:
<user name="john"> <address>123 Oracle Road</address> <address>456 XML Lane</address> </user>
But in that case, why not just make every property a child?
XML also spawned idiotic things like XSLT, which most agree is pretty terrible. If you try to use XSLT for HTML templating, by definition you have to escape every meaningful HTML character like "<>&'". If you wish to print one of those characters in your templates, you have to double escape them. No designer I know of would touch it with a ten foot pole, and every programmer I've met who loved XML and its associated technologies was terrible at their job.
Basically XML is strongly associated with the bloaty enterprise Java world, who used XML as their hammer to beat down anything remotely nail-like.
E.g. you have <user name="john" address="123 Oracle Road"></user>
Now you decide you need multiple addresses per user. Do you: a) invent an ad-hoc string serialization scheme for the address="" property, or b) completely restructure your XML into:
<user name="john"> <address>123 Oracle Road</address> <address>456 XML Lane</address> </user>
But in that case, why not just make every property a child?
XML also spawned idiotic things like XSLT, which most agree is pretty terrible. If you try to use XSLT for HTML templating, by definition you have to escape every meaningful HTML character like "<>&'". If you wish to print one of those characters in your templates, you have to double escape them. No designer I know of would touch it with a ten foot pole, and every programmer I've met who loved XML and its associated technologies was terrible at their job.
Basically XML is strongly associated with the bloaty enterprise Java world, who used XML as their hammer to beat down anything remotely nail-like.
As a tree, XML syntax is largely isomorphic with that of Lisp's exposed AST.
Well, yeah, but XML has attributes. I was writing about how that was a problem and so on, but I came up with this
<look attr="at" attr2="up"> this <awkward> problem </awkward></look>
(look (|attr at) (|attr2 up) this (awkward problem))
just by saving "|" as a meta to annotate an attribute pair.
And the weird problem of lone tags looking like unclosed ones magically flies away (I think) since
<script type="text/javascript" src="foo.js" {">", "/>", "></script>"}
is just
(script (|type text/javascript) (|src foo.js))
...sometimes I wonder why isn't everything ever made out of S-exprs.
<look attr="at" attr2="up"> this <awkward> problem </awkward></look>
(look (|attr at) (|attr2 up) this (awkward problem))
just by saving "|" as a meta to annotate an attribute pair.
And the weird problem of lone tags looking like unclosed ones magically flies away (I think) since
<script type="text/javascript" src="foo.js" {">", "/>", "></script>"}
is just
(script (|type text/javascript) (|src foo.js))
...sometimes I wonder why isn't everything ever made out of S-exprs.
Lisp has keywords:
(look #:attr "at" #:attr2 "up" this (awkward problem))
(look '(attr . "at") '(attr2 . "up) this (awkward problem))
(look (attributes attr "at" attr2 "up") this (awkward problem))Ha! Excellent.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Two variants exist: 1) there is the continuation-passing model, used by POJO Java servlets and Node.js, of creating a request and a response objects, and passing them along the pipeline of the request handlers while adding text to the response stream, and 2) there is the tag model, which is the essence of PHP, JSP and if I understood correctly, ASP, where the page itself is raw HTML, with the option of adding actual code to denote business logic, with some syntactic sugar to append to the underlying HTML page which is the text stream.
Now what bugs me is that [X]HTML tries really hard to be a tree, and the current model of treating the HTML response as a fundamentally flat stream leaves the responsibility of creating a well-formed tree to the developer. XML probably is the simplest recursive grammar around, which is the cause of the woes of people who try to treat it with Regex, and Java almost treat XML like an actual extension of itself, and most languages offer decent libraries to read, create and generally mangle XML trees.
So why isn't XHTML created by building XML trees?
Why isn't it mainstream to do stuff like this? (in pseudo-Java)
Element root = new Element("html"); Element body = new Element("body").append(new Element("p").text("Hello, world!")); root.append(body);
Why don't I ever see that idiom?