[Lazarus] Why was XML format chosen for storing settings in Lazarus IDE?

[Mark Morgan Lloyd]

Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:

> BTW: Does anybody know what INI actually stands for? Initialization maybe?

It's as much of "initialization" as MS could fit into a three-letter 
extension when it started using it for Windows in the early-80s.

> Now both examples contain the same information, but lets be honest..
> Which one is easier to read (via human or program), manually tweak if
> needed via human in IDE screws up, takes up less disk space.
> 
> I fully understand that XML has it's place in data transport and helps
> describe complex data. But using XML for something as simple as
> storing a few application settings. It just seems very inappropriate
> in this case, and a classic example of over-engineering.

I agree, but quite frankly we've got it, it works, so let's live with 
it. Unless, of course, you're volunteering to write a unit which will 
convert seamlessly and reliably between the two formats, so that the IDE 
will work out whether the user has updated the human-readable one and 
import accordingly.

Frankly, .ini files that users could (and did) update manually with the 
wrong kind of editor were a support nightmare. But (as others have said) 
that doesn't detract from their usefulness.

I'm currently using a TInifile subclassed to add array- and record-style 
setting names, which pass nicely through the standard reader. However 
that raises a significant question: if I'd coded something to expect a 
simple value and then needed to turn it into an array, how many .ini 
files would need to be updated and could a program do it 100% reliably?

That isn't quite academic: it has, in effect, happened now that the IDE 
handles multiple editor windows. XML- and any worthwhile parser- knows 
how to handle that out of the box, a non-standard hack might not.

-- 
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]