JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML • Hacker News Board

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#51

Post by dscape » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 12:28 AM UTC

The objective of jsonx is: 1) a loss-less representation of json in xml so it can be reused with xml tools. In a sense it's the reverse of jsonml.org.

jsonx is not (neither it is meant to be): - a replacement for json - a format that enables you to query json in a xml database - a standard (I would remember if I was part of a standard comity, although I do recall playing bullshit bingo in some of these meetings)

I think the use case for jsonx is extremely small: maybe exclusively related to transmitting json over the wire in hardware that is specialized for xml processing. Having worked in it I argued many times that it is not even a queryable format, which makes it less usable even in "xml world". ( for a queryable format example you can check isubiker/mljson@github )

If you are not trying to achieve 1) you can/should simply disregard jsonx. That's certainly what I do: It's completely irrelevant for me and even thought I worked on it I never used it in any of my projects. Why should I? You can't query that crap for the heck of it.

About saying crap about IBM: That's just plain stupid. The fact that you can't understand something simply means you can't understand it and not that it is of no value. "all I know is that I know nothing." - Socrates, supposed to be smart guy

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#52

Post by famousactress » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 12:29 AM UTC

Wow. Just wow.

Probably controversial, but in a dozen or so years of programming I think XML probably represents the most stupid and costly ideas to've gained widespread adoption.

I honestly can't think of a single other relatively recent technology that's responsible for nearly as many wasted lines of code, unbelievably inefficient systems, and legions of developers who are terrified of bytes that don't render nicely in notepad.

I hate it. Just saying. (Downvotes expected).

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#53

Post by haberman » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 12:40 AM UTC

famousactress wrote: post #52

Wow. Just wow. Probably controversial, but in a dozen or so years of programming I think XML probably represents the most stupid and costly ideas to've gained widespread adoption. I honestly can't think of a single other relatively recent technology that's responsible for nearly as many wasted lines of code, unbelievably inefficient systems, and legions of developers who are terrified of bytes that don't render nicel…

Couldn't agree more.

The thing that frustrates me the most is that people jump to defend it because it's what they know. It's like they're plugged into the matrix and they will fight for it until the end.

People love to write regexes to process their bastardized XML subset because it's "easy," without realizing that their regex is not even remotely an XML parser and would fall over at the first sight of CDATA.

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#54

Post by haberman » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 12:40 AM UTC

spullara wrote: post #49

haberman wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything converges to the equivalent of protocol buffers. Property lists -> XML -> Binary Property Lists JSON -> JSON Schema -> Binary JSON XML -> XML Schema -> XML Namespaces -> Binary XML Or you can skip all that faffing around and just jump straight to protocol buffers. :) ps. Protocol Buffers have a text format too that looks very similar to JSON. And you can encode protocol buffers as JSON, though I'm not sure…

Similarly you could use Doug Cutting's Avro format that does have a JSON representation. It is also evolvable like Protocol Buffers and works well in untyped languages. I highly recommend it.

Avro looks like an interesting format, thanks for the pointer.

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#55

Post by famousactress » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 1:00 AM UTC

haberman wrote: post #53

famousactress wrote: post #52

Wow. Just wow. Probably controversial, but in a dozen or so years of programming I think XML probably represents the most stupid and costly ideas to've gained widespread adoption. I honestly can't think of a single other relatively recent technology that's responsible for nearly as many wasted lines of code, unbelievably inefficient systems, and legions of developers who are terrified of bytes that don't render nicel…

Couldn't agree more. The thing that frustrates me the most is that people jump to defend it because it's what they know. It's like they're plugged into the matrix and they will fight for it until the end. People love to write regexes to process their bastardized XML subset because it's "easy," without realizing that their regex is not even remotely an XML parser and would fall over at the first sight of CDATA.

Totally. On two totally independent occasions I've come into work to have a coworker tell me they implemented an XML Parser the evening before. Um, right. Great.

The thing that totally boggles my mind is that I think it really prove-ably fails to deliver on literally every promise/benefit/design-goal that I hear folks claim it embodies.

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#56

Post by jallmann » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 1:05 AM UTC

js2 wrote: post #12

Reminds me of the Property List evolution: 1. "Under NeXTSTEP, property lists were designed to be human-readable and edited by hand, serialized to ASCII in a syntax somewhat like a programming language." 2. "In Mac OS X 10.0, the NeXTSTEP format was deprecated, and a new XML format was introduced." 3. "Since XML files, however, are not the most space-efficient means of storage, Mac OS X 10.2 introduced a new format w…

Unfortunately, XML still prevails in XCode config and xib files. Modifying them makes for a completely polluted diff in your commit. Makes me rage.

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#57

Post by derleth » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 1:53 AM UTC

Stormbringer wrote: post #38

pnathan wrote: post #13

IBM. I know you have smart people. Why don't you let them be smart?

IBM has been divesting themselves of good programmers for a while now, probably at least a decade. Their interns are steered away from programming, towards career paths that are perceived as adding value: e.g. consulting. I suppose in theory this makes sense: have the smart locals figure out what is needed, write up some specs and then get the guys in Bangalore to bang (sic) it out for you. In practice, it is an abso…

> They can't even maintain the software they wrote 5-10 years ago, they just don't make any effort to retain that knowledge.

IBM is the company that keeps a nearly-five-decade-old architecture and ISA around for its business customers, correct? (zSeries (or whatever its name is this week) is derived from s390, is derived from s370, is derived from s360, was created in the early 1960s.) z/OS and z/VM are modern versions of MVS and CP-40, which date to 1974 and 1967, respectively.

It seems odd that the company that does that would have problems with decade-old software in any of its business units.

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#58

Post by rbanffy » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 1:56 AM UTC

famousactress wrote: post #52

Wow. Just wow. Probably controversial, but in a dozen or so years of programming I think XML probably represents the most stupid and costly ideas to've gained widespread adoption. I honestly can't think of a single other relatively recent technology that's responsible for nearly as many wasted lines of code, unbelievably inefficient systems, and legions of developers who are terrified of bytes that don't render nicel…

> I honestly can't think of a single other relatively recent technology that's responsible for nearly as many wasted lines of code

Java.

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#59

Post by famousactress » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 2:16 AM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #58

famousactress wrote: post #52

Wow. Just wow. Probably controversial, but in a dozen or so years of programming I think XML probably represents the most stupid and costly ideas to've gained widespread adoption. I honestly can't think of a single other relatively recent technology that's responsible for nearly as many wasted lines of code, unbelievably inefficient systems, and legions of developers who are terrified of bytes that don't render nicel…

> I honestly can't think of a single other relatively recent technology that's responsible for nearly as many wasted lines of code Java.

Is Java verbose? Totally.. Is it meritless (like XML)? Absolutely not. I think Java's a great language for some problems, and a fine language for loads of problems.

It's a shame that it's overused for what I guess I'd only describe as institutionalized laziness.. But I don't think it deserves to be mentioned in the same conversation as XML (when the topic is Technologies That Are Fucking Awful).

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#60

Post by rbanffy » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 3:06 AM UTC

famousactress wrote: post #59

rbanffy wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I honestly can't think of a single other relatively recent technology that's responsible for nearly as many wasted lines of code Java.

Is Java verbose? Totally.. Is it meritless (like XML)? Absolutely not. I think Java's a great language for some problems, and a fine language for loads of problems. It's a shame that it's overused for what I guess I'd only describe as institutionalized laziness.. But I don't think it deserves to be mentioned in the same conversation as XML (when the topic is Technologies That Are Fucking Awful).

I agree. I was unfair. Java is good for many things - many times you want to control details somewhere between C and, say, Perl. And yes - it's been used for all the wrong things.