111–120 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer jq.
I should have been clearer. jq is a programming language, but it's also a data language in that a) valid JSON is a valid jq program, b) you can construct JSON data trivially with jq. E.g., : ; jq -n ' .users[0].name="John" | .users[1].name="Jane" ' or : ; jq -n ' .users = [] | .users += [{}|.name = "John"] | .users += [{}|.name = "Jane"] ' but you can make it much much richer than that.
Apple tried something similar https://pkl-lang.org/
Pkl belongs to a related but different category of "configuration" languages, while we are talking about a pure serialization format. A serialization format can be used as a configuration language if designed carefully, but they are distinct.
I would feel much more kindly toward this if it didn't start out by claiming to be better than JSON.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has ALL of the advantages of xᴍʟ.
The main advantages of XML (or any standard) is adoption and a wide ecosystem. Unfortunately that beats any "better" standards by a wide margin. One thing that is also really important is the ability to define a schema and be able to validate. See XML Schema, JSON Schema. This is a really tricky problem to get right. Especially if you try to do both with the same model (describing your data model and describing how i…
The codeblocks don't seem to scale up for me on mobile and are a bit too small to read
We could do all this in Lisp more than 60 years ago, sorry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pkl belongs to a related but different category of "configuration" languages, while we are talking about a pure serialization format. A serialization format can be used as a configuration language if designed carefully, but they are distinct.
Xᴇɴᴏɴ excels at both.