Textual configuration has comments, GUIs don't.

Ack! You're right, but why is this the case? JavaScript obviously has comments, so someone must have made the decision to deliberately leave them out.

What possible reason could there be for that?

Re: Textual configuration has comments, GUIs don't.

#5

Post by FooBarWidget » Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 3:23 PM UTC

amalcon wrote: post #4

pohl wrote: post #3

Unless the config file uses JSON as a format. Then no comments for you!

Ack! You're right, but why is this the case? JavaScript obviously has comments, so someone must have made the decision to deliberately leave them out. What possible reason could there be for that?

JSON is meant to be a serialization language, not a config file language. Therefore it strips out all the things that it doesn't need. If you want a config file language then use YAML which is a much better candidate.

Re: Textual configuration has comments, GUIs don't.

#6

Post by rauljara » Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 3:25 PM UTC

While I do prefer text configuration over guis, I had two thoughts that kind of run counter to his point:

1) There's nothing inherent about guis that prevents them from having a space for comments. Perhaps gui designers should consider leaving spots for comments in complex config situations.

2) A lot of the comments I see in config files are little notes about what this or that setting actually does... comments that are generally not needed in a well designed gui. But then again, I am not a sysadmin. YYMV.

Re: Textual configuration has comments, GUIs don't.

#7

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 3:26 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Textual configuration has comments, GUIs don't.

#8

Post by amalcon » Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 3:37 PM UTC

FooBarWidget wrote: post #5

amalcon wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ack! You're right, but why is this the case? JavaScript obviously has comments, so someone must have made the decision to deliberately leave them out. What possible reason could there be for that?

JSON is meant to be a serialization language, not a config file language. Therefore it strips out all the things that it doesn't need. If you want a config file language then use YAML which is a much better candidate.

Yes, YAML is very nice. Importantly, it reduces to key:value for the 90% of config files that don't require any hierarchy while still allowing hierarchy if you need it.

I'm not sure I buy the serialization argument, though: it's a human-readable serialization format. One of the big advantages of human-readable formats is that you can craft data objects by hand (for automated tests, initial bootstrapping, etc). Comments are very helpful for those situations.

Re: Textual configuration has comments, GUIs don't.

#9

Post by synnik » Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 3:45 PM UTC

"There is no good way to put comments into GUI."

Maybe he hasn't seen any, but this seems a harsh conclusion. Whoever wrote the GUI could track history of changes, make comments required, and show it in the GUI.

There is a vast difference between "there is no way", and "I haven't seen it done right"

Re: Textual configuration has comments, GUIs don't.

#10

Post by burgerbrain » Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 3:49 PM UTC

rauljara wrote: post #6

While I do prefer text configuration over guis, I had two thoughts that kind of run counter to his point: 1) There's nothing inherent about guis that prevents them from having a space for comments. Perhaps gui designers should consider leaving spots for comments in complex config situations. 2) A lot of the comments I see in config files are little notes about what this or that setting actually does... comments that…

Comments in configuration files are approximately equivalent to those "tooltip" things GUIs sometimes have. I think comments are a much better method though since GUIs often seem to be missing their equivalent and even when present, it's a pain in the ass to use.