4 ms·
This exact concept has been done multiple times. And it never worked, because the syntax was horrible. And it's just not convenient at all, it's good for toying
by fallenshell 10y ago
This exact concept has been done multiple times. And it never worked, because the syntax was horrible. And it's just not convenient at all, it's good for toying around with interpreters and the likes but it has no purpose or use. See https://m.reddit.com/r/coding/comments/3akmn1/sums_this_rel_thing_up_pretty_well/ https://m.reddit.com/r/coding/comments/3akmn1/sums_this_rel_...
- epoberezkin 10y agoThat's good to know that it was done before with JSON, I've only seen XML attempts. It probably shows that there is a need, doesn't it? Syntax is a matter of opinion, JSONScript seems more concise than REL in the link.
- macspoofing 10y ago>That's good to know that it was done before with JSON, I've only seen XML attempts. Both approaches are similarly flawed, but XML would actually work much better for what you're trying to do with JSON - and much more readable.
- epoberezkin 10y agoI've seen several XML based scripting implementations. This one for example: http://www.drdobbs.com/web-development/jelly-an-xml-based-scripting-language/184405386 http://www.drdobbs.com/web-development/jelly-an-xml-based-sc... I may have got used to the syntax I came up with, but all XML based scripts seem more verbose and less readable. I guess, each to its own...
- fallenshell 10y agoNot necessarily. It just shows people are willing to experiment with JSON, even though it might end up badly.