XML Auto Updater

[deathtaker26]

Thankyou, marshy.

As for you guys, for you're sake(like I said) ill add comments to my next release which should be tomorrow or friday…

[crzyone9584]

Marshy Dearest is right. But releasing source stating you can edit to meet your own needs or just releasing source in general is for people to learn from. With out knowing what going on and having to run the program and debug every line to figure out how it works is really annoying and unnecessary when you comment. It saves time for someone who is learning or for someone who would like to add a function to said source.

crest you dont have to do anything you don't want to. I kept going cause of how you acted in the shoutbox, plus i had nothing better to do at the moment.

[deathtaker26]

Actually I kinda… did the same thing ._. .... okay, well obviously we don't agree on much here crzy but for the sake of the forum, let's all just stop arguing?

[Robin]

@Marsh:

> Comments and recognizable keywords are important and pushed by the industry. With that said Crest was nice enough to release a product to the community. Whether he has made the code with comments or not is completely up to him. We are not a professional market here.

When you release an open-source product to 35,000 members you have a responsibility to make it the best you can. There are lots of people on here who learn from these things. Hell, look at the next generation of members who are all going off to University courses and jobs because of what they learnt from Origins. It would have been irresponsible of me to feed them dodgy code.

People take releasing projects way too lightly now-a-days.

[Godlord]

@crzy:

> Those who don't put comments are usually idiots.

Literate programming only requires comments to describe flaws that either have to be resolved, or are already resolved, as an example of why some professional programmers wouldn't use comments (since they waste tons of time describing something that the code can express properly).

@Crest:

> - snip -

Why bother with the XML format? It's slow to parse, and you generally need a SAX-parser, which enforces sequential access. Otherwise you'll have to use a DOM-parser, which will use lots of memory, because it loads an entire XML file to memory. The only reason to actually use XML is because other people who have a bad taste for design decisions chose to for their programmes.

Asynchronous file access and memory mapped file access are more interesting topics to handle as a learning programmer. You don't want to use a poor file format, you want to encode your files in binary (which is yet another interesting topic), and you want to map them to memory, since your operating system is better at reading and writing files than an application using direct synchronous file access (no reason to use the heap, no reason to make several system calls, no reason to actually do it yourself in userspace).

Yours faithfully,
  Stephan.

[deathtaker26]

Actually, .net has a built in xml libarary that allows you to read nodes and stuff from an xml file, it works about the same speed as it takes for a program to read a simple text document

[Godlord]

@Crest:

> Actually, .net has a built in xml libarary that allows you to read nodes and stuff from an xml file, it works about the same speed as it takes for a program to read a simple text document

I am comparing XML to binary file formats, as those are used in the practical world. Why are you making this assumption? I haven't even touched the subject of "simple text documents" (whatever you are talking about, since that term is overly ambiguous).

Yours faithfully,
  Stephan.

[deathtaker26]

I misunderstood what you said. I thought you were talking about how long it takes for a stream reader to read an xml file compared to other file types.