X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=UyAmGjrYBPhkLVvEPdy5FcxGYsLWLUYK3Lff8+u8fVs=; b=Fj0S6Sg/EiHUNpn2k5nI1id+JlAJzx+OD34KtDKscdjPwDkfvm13GVYbuMpLaqrKIF Q+AG98M8gu/JL1KD1zWG2aK2LW24VH8+bFUexBYEs8+4HA4967ATzfF0dOEl3+yMJYaA gB0Klu+yg2QtkT/v9E2Tcxp9U/TA14cuhDj6n5O/IkyhbQxtZM5P27BQeBDI/b8wg6Hz q05Ivh7+vie2uBZQLJ48msljhU4rxIk4ayb8a1bPEq8gd336d/tGxhzdOKv1ZtMAnJ0K fZSG/M45FC4NbHNuwpDbI9FRCigK5k5h0CxB32QTi8iqYDZcb7W5+Wfj5dgfE+DnkF04 CPWw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.48.131 with SMTP id w125mr207066wmw.18.1451937599278; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:59:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1512221837 DOT AA25291 AT ivan DOT Harhan DOT ORG> <20151222232230 DOT 12633 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <0F6F1D0F-4F07-48EA-90FE-836EAD4E2354 AT noqsi DOT com> <0FCF3774-F93C-4BFF-BB61-636F75DCCACB AT noqsi DOT com> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 10:59:59 -0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] A fileformat library From: "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114242a4d7555805288790f5 Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk --001a114242a4d7555805288790f5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:25 PM, John Doty wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2016, at 7:11 PM, Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via > geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Nicklas Karlsson ( > nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] < > geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote: > >> > As I've mentioned previously I'm talking pcb, which is a more painful >> > format to parse (such that so far as I'm aware the parser in pcb is the >> > only one). Personally I find formats like this: >> > >> > device=RESISTOR >> > T 44400 49300 5 10 1 1 90 0 1 >> > >> > substantially less readable than ones with field names, but they are >> indeed >> > easy to parse. The pcb format is quite a bit more elaborate and the >> > savings from not rolling your own parser are more significant. >> >> Yes this is simple to parse, use little file space but do not have field >> name. To use little file space and be simple to parse is actually two good >> properties of a file format. >> >> Lack of field names may be worked around by having a list of field names >> in the beginning. If this list of field names is sorted according to how >> often they are used and each row only have to list used values it would >> probably be a file format with rather good properties. >> >> To enumerate the field names at the beginning of the file may also be a >> solution. Or maybe to use representation of data structures from a >> programming language. >> > > Although these are good measures, once you adopt them you may start asking > yourself why you aren't just using a binary format. The argument for text > is that you can glance at a chunk of it and easily tell what's going on. > > > A stronger argument for text is that you can process it with text-oriented > tools. > But ultimately the reason for wanting to use those text-oriented tools is the same: you can see what you're working on with your own eyes. In every other respect binary is better. --001a114242a4d7555805288790f5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:25 PM, John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> wr= ote:
=
On Jan 3, 2016, at 7:11 PM, Britton Kerin (<= a href=3D"mailto:britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com" target=3D"_blank">britton DOT kerin AT g= mail.com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:


On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas.karlsson= 17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> As I've mentioned previ= ously I'm talking pcb, which is a more painful
> format to parse (such that so far as I'm aware the parser in pcb i= s the
> only one).=C2=A0 Personally I find formats like this:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0device=3DRESISTOR
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0T 44400 49300 5 10 1 1 90 0 1
>
> substantially less readable than ones with field names, b= ut they are indeed
> easy to parse.=C2=A0 The pcb format is quite a bit more elabora= te and the
> savings from not rolling your own parser are more significant.
Yes this is simple to parse, use little file space but do not have f= ield name. To use little file space and be simple to parse is actually two = good properties of a file format.

Lack of field names may be worked around by having a list of field names in= the beginning. If this list of field names is sorted according to how ofte= n they are used and each row only have to list used values it would probabl= y be a file format with rather good properties.

To enumerate the field names at the beginning of the file may also be a sol= ution. Or maybe to use representation of data structures from a programming= language.

Although these are good meas= ures, once you adopt them you may start asking yourself why you aren't = just using a binary format.=C2=A0 The argument for text is that you can gla= nce at a chunk of it and easily tell what's going on.
=

A stronger argument for text is th= at you can process it with text-oriented tools.

But ultimately the reason for wanting to use th= ose text-oriented tools is the same: you can see what you're working on= with your own eyes.=C2=A0 In every other respect binary is better.=C2=A0

--001a114242a4d7555805288790f5--