This is a read-only copy. The forum ran on iamcal.com from 2000 until its database was lost in 2016, and this topic was rebuilt from copies saved by the Internet Archive's
Wayback Machine.
Some replies may be missing.
Posted by
cal, 23:21, 18th May 2004:
some new code things:
SHA1 (Secure Hashing Algorithm) written in
IMC
New version of
lib_filter
XML::Parser::Lite::Tree (perhaps self explanatory)
MT3 plugin:
Audioscrobbler
MT3 plugin:
Tags
Forum software in
Ruby
Posted by
Brock, 00:08, 19th May 2004:
"(perhaps self explanatory)"
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
/wipes a tear from my eye.
Not in my fucking world, I assure you. I nag you all this time about updating the weblog, and you just put a load of letters up which mean so little to me, I find it disturbing.
Can't we have a silly flash game or something? Even a silly website? Come on! Entertain the stupid too, we're people as well, you know!
You programmist bastard!
;)
Posted by
Grim..., 08:56, 19th May 2004:
What is Ruby? Clicking on the folder brings no joy...
Posted by
Hanni, 17:14, 19th May 2004:
Ah, the Audioscrobbbler plugin looks interesting, I shall give it a whirl.
Posted by
cal, 17:17, 19th May 2004:
try a google search for "ruby"
Posted by
jeffld, 07:19, 5th July 2004:
How do you feel about XML being used for large databases? By large I mean several million records with an average of 15 to 30 fields. Typical record length being about 100 to 1000 bytes.
Let me illustrate the sizes of the data another way.
If the data was stored in a flat file of fixed length records then the size of the file would be from 100 million bytes to 5 billion bytes.
If the tags are large, then the sizes of the files grow exponentially.
Posted by
Brock, 13:57, 5th July 2004:
How would I feel? i reckon it would make me dizzy. I reckon you should ask Cal...
Posted by
cal, 18:08, 5th July 2004:
it's crazy - it's a data *exchange* format. within a self-contained system only a madman would use xml - you can't do proper random access (unless it's a very simple schema, and even then you can't record count), it's slow to parse, and makes for huge databases.
Posted by
jeffld, 18:25, 5th July 2004:
brock: I was hoping cal would respond. I was looking for his professional opinion.
cal: I was afraid you would say that, but I agree 100%.
I was really hoping you would say that really.
I believe that XML is excellent for small transactions, especially web content, but there are better ways to handle large amounts of data that is to be used as a database. I have been doing some research on XML processing because unfortunately there some large clients of the company that I work for that think that XML is the silver bullet to all of their data exchange problems.
I would rather get 50 small flat files than one huge XML file which I would have to parse into 50 small flat files anyway.
Posted by
jeffld, 21:45, 9th July 2004:
XML run amock.
It looks like all the big Database companies are going towards XML support.
Infoworld - Databases flex their XML
This is a whole new learning curve for people that need to work with databases.
I also see that Microsoft has XML support in their new SQL server 2005 code named "Yukon".
They bloated our OS, now they want to bloat our data...
MSDN - SQL Server 2005
Posted by
jeffld, 18:20, 21st July 2004:
cal
I think you missed editing the readme.txt of XML-Parser-Lite-Tree-0.01.tar.gz - It looks like a boilerplate readme.txt.
The other two readme.txt files look good.
Posted by
cal, 18:34, 21st July 2004:
yeah - that was one of the mistakes in the first version. i need to check a little more carefully before making releases