5 ms·

Agreed. Just adding some fixed types doesn't really help that much. Something like EDN for JSON would be cool: https://github.com/edn-format/edn https://github

• fnordsensei 10y ago
  Isn't Transit basically EDN for JSON in that it adds types and whatnot, and encodes to JSON? Or do you mean, you want a format that's sort of halfway between EDN and JSON?
  • marianoguerra 10y ago
    transit works great except that it's unreadable with current tools (for example browser devtools or attaching listeners to kafka). I know it's a tool problem but I don't see the whole world embracing transit. If this format gets adopted with extensible types we get a readable format that has what transit provides and if there's no tooling support we can still read it with standard json tools or none at all.
    • unlogic 10y ago
      Transit is unreadable exactly because it has to work around the limitations of JSON (like string-only keys) to deliver its primary features: true maps, tagged collections etc. TJSON only has tags for primitives, so yeah, it's not much different from JSON this way, the tooling is happy.
• bascule 10y ago
  > Just adding some fixed types doesn't really help that much. It brings the set of scalar types you can express in a JSON message on par with other serialization formats like Protobufs: https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3