3 ms·

> it gives you the simplest no-BS object/array literals you can get I really don't think that: { "foo": "bar", "baz": ["quux", 1, true] }

by zeveb 10y ago

> it gives you the simplest no-BS object/array literals you can get I really don't think that: { "foo": "bar", "baz": ["quux", 1, true] } is simpler than: ((foo bar) (baz (quux 1 true))) Quite the opposite, really.

dccoolgai 10y ago
That does look nice. Is that, LISP? To my eye, they look roughly equivalent, though - and a lot of what I consider the "No-BS object system" occurs after the literal is declared - adding and manipulating properties, etc.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > Is that, LISP? Well, S-expressions, which can be used for Lisp code, but can also just be used for plain data. > a lot of what I consider the "No-BS object system" occurs after the literal is declared - adding and manipulating properties, etc. Yeah, it's definitely convenient to use, even more so than Python's objects. I prefer a stronger type system for my own software though.
akubera 10y ago
Question: Can s-expression list-of-lists really be used to represent an unordered map when it comes to operations like equality? Or rather, does one simply use expectations/context to compare this object to, say [["foo", "bar"], ["baz", ["quuz", 1, true]]] making it a non-issue?
- zeveb 10y ago
  > Question: Can s-expression list-of-lists really be used to represent an unordered map when it comes to operations like equality? With the right predicates, anything is possible grin I think that context unavoidable: one can't just read a JSON value into a generic data structure, or even into a typed structure: one has to apply the types of one's business logic (e.g. 'user-id' must not only be a string, but a string beginning with either 'E' or 'C'). In that context (pun intended), then it makes sense for equality comparisons to be at the business-object layer, not at the freshly-deserialised JSON object layer.
Anasufovic 10y ago
The bottom is definitely ambiguous.
- zeveb 10y ago
  What's ambiguous? If you don't like that it's using a list to represent a map, you could always use: (map (foo bar) (baz (quux 1 true))) But you might reflect on the fact that JSON uses an ordered sequence of bytes to represent an unordered collection of properties and values.

by zeveb 10y ago

dccoolgai 10y ago

That does look nice. Is that, LISP? To my eye, they look roughly equivalent, though - and a lot of what I consider the "No-BS object system" occurs after the literal is declared - adding and manipulating properties, etc.

zeveb 10y ago
> Is that, LISP? Well, S-expressions, which can be used for Lisp code, but can also just be used for plain data. > a lot of what I consider the "No-BS object system" occurs after the literal is declared - adding and manipulating properties, etc. Yeah, it's definitely convenient to use, even more so than Python's objects. I prefer a stronger type system for my own software though.

akubera 10y ago

Question: Can s-expression list-of-lists really be used to represent an unordered map when it comes to operations like equality? Or rather, does one simply use expectations/context to compare this object to, say [["foo", "bar"], ["baz", ["quuz", 1, true]]] making it a non-issue?

zeveb 10y ago
> Question: Can s-expression list-of-lists really be used to represent an unordered map when it comes to operations like equality? With the right predicates, anything is possible grin I think that context unavoidable: one can't just read a JSON value into a generic data structure, or even into a typed structure: one has to apply the types of one's business logic (e.g. 'user-id' must not only be a string, but a string beginning with either 'E' or 'C'). In that context (pun intended), then it makes sense for equality comparisons to be at the business-object layer, not at the freshly-deserialised JSON object layer.

Anasufovic 10y ago

The bottom is definitely ambiguous.

zeveb 10y ago
What's ambiguous? If you don't like that it's using a list to represent a map, you could always use: (map (foo bar) (baz (quux 1 true))) But you might reflect on the fact that JSON uses an ordered sequence of bytes to represent an unordered collection of properties and values.