10 ms·
"built-in JSON serializer/deserializer" near "closures" and "coroutines (via fibers)" feels a bit.. odd. Sign of the times, I understand, but still. Apart fro
by pavfarb 10y ago
"built-in JSON serializer/deserializer" near "closures" and
"coroutines (via fibers)" feels a bit.. odd. Sign of the times, I understand, but still.
Apart from this boring grumbling, the project is very interesting. Waiting for internals (https://marcobambini.github.io/gravity/internals/index.html https://marcobambini.github.io/gravity/internals/index.html) to arrive.
- adrianratnapala 10y agoI think languages should have built in help for serialisation, though not tied to a particular format. This is to get around the tension between automating the process (avoiding boiler-plate) versus "gating" to validate and transform data as it enters/leaves the domain model. All serialisation frameworks I've seen map internal record types (structs, objects) to an external schema, and write directly to record fields -- breaking down that "gate". What I would like is to map those schema to something like a constructor/factory parameter list instead. (Python keyword arguments come close, but the lack of typing means there is still no schema). Serialisation libraries should confine themselves to converting between (typed) key-value pairs and wire formats. Then there should be syntactic sugar to help the transition between that plain-old data and the real domain model.