I'm still absolutely amazed that HTML and XML ever made it out of the starting blocks. Both are horribly tag-bloated which unnecessarily clogs the pipe, bottlenecks I/O, and uses unnecessary amounts of memory and disk space. They require de-entitization of some fairly common characters, require comparatively a lot of cpu time to shred or create, XML requires prior structural knowledge to parse it in T-SQL (which is VERY contrary to what it was initially advertised to do), is a whole lot less human readable than I ever expected especially for the more deeply nested stuff, and requires at least 2 different parsing techniques for "combination" XML (Element and Entity combined).
I realize that both HTML and XML have worldwide acceptance and have become the defacto standard for digital communications between computers but, just because a couple of billion people are all doing the same thing, I don't have to like it especially since I think they're doing it wrong. :-P
Admittedly and ironically, the good things that I've seen come out of it is 1) the manufacturers of PC hardware and all that connects them together have had to make everything bigger (capability wise) yet more compact and much faster to handle the tag-bloat and parsing requirements and 2) the world has finally agreed on something even if I think it's crud. ;-)
is pronounced ree-bar and is a Modenism for R
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code: Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column.
If you think its expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. -- Red Adair
How to post code problemsHow to post performance problemsForum FAQs