What YAML engine do you use?

[Reinhold Birkenfeld]

Hello,

I know that there are different YAML engines for Python out there (Syck,
PyYaml, more?).

Which one do you use, and why?

For those of you who don't know what YAML is: visit http://yaml.org/!
You will be amazed, and never think of XML again. Well, almost.

Reinhold

[Diez B. Roggisch]

> I know that there are different YAML engines for Python out there (Syck,

PyYaml, more?).

Which one do you use, and why?
I first used yaml, tried to migrate to syck. What I like about syck is that
it is faster and doesn't try to create objects but only dicts - but it
crashed if the number of yaml objects grew larger. So I still use yaml.

For those of you who don't know what YAML is: visit http://yaml.org/!
You will be amazed, and never think of XML again. Well, almost.

It is certainly nice.

--
Regards,

Diez B. Roggisch

[Jonas Galvez]

Diez B. Roggisch wrote:

I first used yaml, tried to migrate to syck. What I like about
syck is that it is faster and doesn't try to create objects but
only dicts - but it crashed if the number of yaml objects grew
larger. So I still use yaml.

Hmm.. I've never had any problems with syck. In fact, I'm using it in
a small project now where I store a helluva of data in yaml files...

Strange.

[Istvan Albert]

Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:

You will be amazed, and never think of XML again.

XML with elementtree is what makes me never have think about XML again.

Istvan.

[Irmen de Jong]

Istvan Albert wrote:

XML with elementtree is what makes me never have think about XML again.

+1 QOTW

-Irmen

[Paul Rubin]

Reinhold Birkenfeld <re************ ************@wo lke7.net> writes:

For those of you who don't know what YAML is: visit http://yaml.org/!
You will be amazed, and never think of XML again. Well, almost.

Oh please no, not another one of these. We really really don't need it.

[rm]

Paul Rubin wrote:

Reinhold Birkenfeld <re************ ************@wo lke7.net> writes:

For those of you who don't know what YAML is: visit http://yaml.org/!
You will be amazed, and never think of XML again. Well, almost.

Oh please no, not another one of these. We really really don't need it.

well, I did look at it, and as a text format is more readable than XML
is. Furthermore, XML's verbosity is incredible. This format is not.
People are abusing the genericity of XML to put everything into it.

Parsing and working with XML are highly optimized, so there's not really
a problem in that sector. But to transfer the same data in a YAML
format, rather than a XML format is much more economic. But networks are
getting faster, right?

Nowadays, people are trying to create binary XML, XML databases,
graphics in XML (btw, I'm quite impressed by SVG), you have XSLT, you
have XSL-FO, ... .

And I think, YAML is a nice initiative.

bye,
rm

[Fredrik Lundh]

"rm" wrote:

well, I did look at it, and as a text format is more readable than XML is.

judging from http://yaml.org/spec/current.html (750k), the YAML designers are
clearly insane. that's the most absurd software specification I've ever seen. they
need help, not users.

</F>

[A.M. Kuchling]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:30:47 +0100,
rm <[e-mail]> wrote:

Nowadays, people are trying to create binary XML, XML databases,
graphics in XML (btw, I'm quite impressed by SVG), you have XSLT, you
have XSL-FO, ... .

Which is an argument in favor of XML -- it's where the activity is, so it's
quite likely you'll encounter the need to know XML. Few projects use YAML,
so the chance of having to know its syntactic details is small.

--amk

[A.M. Kuchling]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:54:50 +0100,
Fredrik Lundh <fr*****@python ware.com> wrote:

judging from http://yaml.org/spec/current.html (750k), the YAML designers are
clearly insane. that's the most absurd software specification I've ever seen. they
need help, not users.

IMHO that's a bit extreme. Specifications are written to be detailed, so
consequently they're torture to read. Seen the ReStructured Text spec
lately?

The basic idea -- a data dumping format that's human-readable -- isn't a bad
one. OTOH, I can't recall wanting such a thing -- when I want readable
output I'm happy using
unreadable pickle files, unpickling the object and calling a .dump() or
..as_text() method.)

But YAML seems to have started out with the goal of being human-writable,
something you would write in Emacs, and that seems to have gotten lost; the
format is now just as complicated as Restructured Text, but more cryptic
(the URI namespacing for tags, for example), not really simpler than
XML and in some ways weaker (e.g. only two encodings supported, more
complicated escaping rules).

For a pure Python application, I can't see a need for YAML; use
pickle/cPickle instead, because they're already there. Exchanging
serialized objects between Python/Perl/Ruby scripts might be a good use case
for YAML, but XML has wider software support and S-expressions are simpler,
so my inclination would be to use them instead of YAML.

--amk