Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 5
    Not wanting to start an XML debate here, but it's worth pointing out that XML is actually good at both of those things. It's not always optimal - if configuration files don't need to be structured then KVPs are better, and if cross-application compatibility isn't a requirement then a binary format is clearly better for storage/serialization. But I don't think XML is such a great example because it tended to find itself being used in areas where it was merely sub-optimal as opposed to totally inappropriate. Commented Sep 21, 2010 at 18:07
  • 4
    +1: It's worth-while to stretch your tools to see how many problems can be pounded into the shape of a nail when you're learning a technology. Commented Sep 21, 2010 at 18:15
  • +1: Other examples of this sort of magic hammer are jQuery (as mentioned in the question) and regular expressions. Not that these things are bad, in fact they're really useful, but they aren't the answer to everything. Commented Sep 21, 2010 at 18:56
  • 14
    I think that the "LINQ is a hammer and every problem is a nail" analogy is pushing it a little too far. I'd say LINQ is such a good hammer that when a large proportion of your work involves nails, you can get into a groove and not notice that you just hammered in a screw. Even if you aren't a bad programmer. Commented Oct 5, 2010 at 2:38
  • @Aaronaught: On the other hand, the use of XML with long field names seemed suboptimal to me for data transmission through low-bandwidth and not-entirely-reliable radio links. Then again, that's also what I thought of the database design on that product. Commented Nov 10, 2010 at 22:26