The only problem with json is that you can't do comments with the default implementation.
Better Than JSON?
31–40 of 153 posts
Re: Better Than JSON?
#32Evernote's API also uses Thrift, fwiw
https://dev.evernote.com/doc/reference/
Re: Better Than JSON?
#33Everyone loves to hate on XML just because it can be verbose and some of the WS* protocols are complicated. But as a human-readable format it’s no harder to read or parse than JSON and legacy application support is orders of magnitude better than JSON. I’m not saying we should all use it but we shouldn’t be hating it either.
Make these people debug doyne old EDI documents and all of a sudden XML doesn't seem so bad.
who doesn't love x12, especially with its loops and segments?
Re: Better Than JSON?
#34Everyone loves to hate on XML just because it can be verbose and some of the WS* protocols are complicated. But as a human-readable format it’s no harder to read or parse than JSON and legacy application support is orders of magnitude better than JSON. I’m not saying we should all use it but we shouldn’t be hating it either.
Hmm no, XML is 10x harder to read than JSON, period. It's just a ugly format with so much metadata information which are not human friendly.
I think that's the main problem of XML it's not meant to be read by humans but people thought it was.
Re: Better Than JSON?
#35Everyone loves to hate on XML just because it can be verbose and some of the WS* protocols are complicated. But as a human-readable format it’s no harder to read or parse than JSON and legacy application support is orders of magnitude better than JSON. I’m not saying we should all use it but we shouldn’t be hating it either.
The issue with XML is that it was mostly pushed upon developers without any deeper understanding. So there's a ton of utterly crap XML applications out there with no rhyme or reason, and these crap XML enterprise apps are most developer's understanding of "real world XML". Similar to how terrible C++ code being all over the place is making people hate C++ the language. ------- XML can be used very well however: its u…
>crap XML enterprise apps are most developer's understanding of "real world XML"
I mean if there's enough of it, it kinda becomes "real world XML". Right or wrong human's ability to actually use the tool or tech well is often where the bar is set. Could be a great idea but if folks can't do it... won't fly.
Re: Better Than JSON?
#36I would have expected some mention to https://jsonnet.org/ too, which after a bit of practice can be brilliant.
Re: Better Than JSON?
#37Everyone loves to hate on XML just because it can be verbose and some of the WS* protocols are complicated. But as a human-readable format it’s no harder to read or parse than JSON and legacy application support is orders of magnitude better than JSON. I’m not saying we should all use it but we shouldn’t be hating it either.
It’s made for documents. It just doesn’t fit to general data structures. For instance when do you put class members in elements and when in attributes?
Re: Better Than JSON?
#38Arrow is rapidly become a data interchange format for Pandas and GPU compute, didn't see that on there
Re: Better Than JSON?
#39The only problem with json is that you can't do comments with the default implementation.
No trailing commas and multi-line strings are my other two big complaints. The ability to leave keys unquoted if they don't have any spaces would also be nice.
The best part is that these are a superset of JSON and could easily be added if there would just be more buy-in (lots of unofficial support already exists).
Re: Better Than JSON?
#40There are a bunch more possible entries in the human-readable category, one of the more popular contenders is TOML. https://github.com/toml-lang/toml .
There are more. I don't know if java dot-properties file is worth including.