171–180 of 199 posts
====================================================== http://WWW.Works23.Com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
because that is what json is for
no, that's not what json for. JSON is for exchange data between machines. We already have data interchange formats for humans, we call those 'languages'.
Why JSON at all if you don't care about reading it?
I'm not against Protobuf, BSON, SPDY and the likes, my argument is just that JSON is used over binary formats only because it's readable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a terrible language, though. That's common knowledge. It is, however, wrong to say it's terrible because of laziness.
I really don't think it's fair to say it's a terrible language. It does have some terrible, horrible parts. But it also has some wonderful, awe-inspiring, mind-blowing parts. It's just not a MOR language - you have extreme lows and awesome highs.
I still don't get around how `this` can be so broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least you can inspect the document you got with normal tools. Not so if you include comments. And this may even encourage people into separating the data payload from the metadata, who knows?
That sounds like a "no true scotsman" argument. If comments were added to the spec then normal tools would support them just fine. Besides, JSON has already become a common format for config files. Config files that don't allow comments are truly a step backward.
I don't see how this is a "no true scotsman". Maybe a non-true "no true scotsman"?
> If comments were added to the spec then normal tools would support them just fine.
Plain comments, sure. Comments with custom annotations in them, not so much.
> Besides, JSON has already become a common format for config files. Config files that don't allow comments are truly a step backward.
Maybe this wasn't such a good idea in the first place?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because he's very aware of it already and people here may not be. (Meta: Why have any conversation on an HN back-channel when there are comments open at the source?)
Meta: because the comments are closed to people with a Google account that have no problems in sharing their comment on G+ publicly
Specially now that giving in to G+ means showing up on ads.
My faint hopes for trailing comma support are now crushed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may as well make this argument against human speech. We need secure transport, not gibberish protocols.
Not really even a close metaphor, since human speech isn't a internet standard I could build devices against and sell to customers as compliant. Considering that DPI devices are already sold to parse json-desribed protocols dynamically, I think you are a bit uninformed about my statement. It is not hypothetical.
If you want security, you need encryption, not obscure encoding formats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. On the other hand, I find YAML much better for this kind of thing. JSON is readable and writable by hand, but it's not terribly nice.
No doubt they both have their benefits, however in an environment particularly suited for working with JSON, like node.js, the additional overhead of a YAML (or other) parser may not be desirable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was a million dollar laugh. Yes, a million dollars. We have testimony in this very thread from tedivm who had to rewrite JSMin because of this laugh. That has to have been a multi-thousand-dollar project right there. Think about the time IBM alone spent on this issue. Developers, managers, lawyers. Five grand? Easily. Maybe more. Play out this scenario a few hundred times across the globe, and there's your milli…
> It comes at somebody's expense. Bullshit. You are not entitled to any particular piece of software, not a single thing is taken from you when you find a software license intolerable. So something isn't licensed how you like... so what ? Negotiate new terms, or move on with your life and use something else. Bitching that something is 'Do no evil' licensed so that you cannot use it is no better than bitching that som…
I made a simple economic statement, and I stand by it: The "shall be used for Good, not Evil" episode had a very real cost to it.
People did exactly what you say: negotiated new terms (like IBM) or moved on with their lives and found or wrote something else (like tedivm).
Sure, my million dollar estimate could be way off. But the cost wasn't a small one, and it wasn't just money.
Consider the many developers who saw what looked like an ordinary MIT license and didn't notice the change in the middle or understand the problem with it - maybe thought it was just a cute sentiment. So they made plans and commitments based on being able to use the code. Then their managers made commitments to their bosses and customers. And finally, they all got shot down by Legal and had to scramble to find another solution.
This cost people time and reputation.
GPL and proprietary licenses are different, because they would never be mistaken for the MIT license. A developer could easily find out if they were on the company's approved list or not. And as you know, the GPL itself forbids any changes to its text. So the same problem would be much less likely to happen with those kinds of licenses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you manually code json?
I built a game that uses JSON for metadata and config files.
... The irony of yaml being human and version control friendly but including massive amounts of serialization mechanism vs. json being for data exchange and having extremely rudimentary serialization features aside.