yaml vs perl complexity ( was Re: [Catalyst] JSON instead of YAML? )

[Corey]

On Wednesday January 25 2006 12:43 pm, Matt S Trout wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 12:28:12PM -0700, Corey wrote:
> > On Wednesday January 25 2006 11:48 am, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> > > * Bill Moseley <moseley at hank.org> [2006-01-25 17:40]:
> > > >At least it isn't complex like writing perl. ;)
> > >
> > > Yeah, look at how simple it is. An end user will certainly have
> > > fewer problems with that than with Perl.
> >
> > Well I don't see any control/flow structures/logic in YAML, and you can't
> > define subroutines or call external modules, etc. etc.
> >
> > If there were a dialect of perl that did nothing more than set variables,
> > then sure.
>
> I'm sure you could construct such a thing using Safe.pm
>

I can see how such a library might be extremely usefull - however, we already 
have something that fills that niche quite well: YAML. 

I think James is on the right track with YAML::Lite and using a 
frozen/branched version of YAML 0.39 until this whole thing blows over.

I don't think it'd be a great idea to go scrambling in some new direction, due 
to a temporary setback.

YAML is good.