5 ms·

It's more than JUST library support. It's also that JSON deserializes into common native data types naturally (dictionary, list, string, number, null). You can

It's more than JUST library support. It's also that JSON deserializes into common native data types naturally (dictionary, list, string, number, null). You can deserialize XML into the same data types, but it's not anywhere near as clean because of how extensible XML is. That's a big part of what's made JSON successful.

dangerlibrary 9y ago
This is really only true in dynamically typed languages. From personal experience: parsing json in Java or Go without just treating everything as a bag of Object or an interface{} requires a ton of menial boilerplate work. Super nice in python/ruby/javascript, though.
- moduspol 9y ago
  Sure--it's kind of a pain in Swift, too. Wouldn't it just be worse with XML, though? I get that people don't realistically parse it themselves and libraries are smart enough to use schemas to deserialize, but there's nothing inherent about JSON that makes it unable to conform to a schema or be parsable by libraries into native strongly-typed objects the same way.
  - mstade 9y ago
    Except JSON doesn't have semantics to describe schemas, only arrays, objects, strings, numbers and null. You can say "but this key is special" but then it's not JSON anymore. And if you're ok with that, may as well just use JSON-LD or some other JSON-like format.
- kitsunesoba 9y ago
  Swift 4 will have JSON encoding/decoding built in, and I wouldn't be surprised to see such a feature spring up in other modern languages too. Once that boilerplate is eliminated, json is a pretty decent solution. https://www.hackingwithswift.com/swift4 https://www.hackingwithswift.com/swift4
  - moduspol 9y ago
    I am very stoked for this.
- tveita 9y ago
  > parsing json in Java or Go without just treating everything as a bag of Object or an interface{} requires a ton of menial boilerplate work. From my experience in Java it is pretty simple using a library like Jackson. You define the types you expect to read, maybe add some annotations, and then it's one function call to deserialize. IIRC Go has something similar in its json library.
  - cdelsolar 9y ago
    Yes, it's arguably nicer in Go, because you specify exactly what types and field names you expect, and then it's just a simple json.Unmarshal
- zokier 9y ago
  Idk, I think JSON parsing is pretty ergonomic in Rust, definitely nicer than your typical XML DOM.
mstade 9y ago
Right, but you inevitably end up with boilerplate "massage" code around your data anyway. Case in point: dates, any number that isn't just a number e.g. currencies or big numbers, URLs, file paths, hex, hashes. Basically any type that carries any kind of semantics beyond array, object, string, number, or null will require this boilerplate, only that your data format has no way of describing them except for out-of-band specs, if you want to call them such. At least XML has schemas, and even if all you're doing is deserializing everything into JsonML like objects you're still better off because you'll have in-band metadata to point you in the right direction.
- mstade 9y ago
  Also, for what it's worth, your point is exactly why I mentioned E4X. Sure wasn't a panacea, but it had some things going for it.
  - Marazan 9y ago
    E4X was exceedingly great. Loved it.
- spc476 9y ago
  CBOR [1] allows the semantic tagging of data values and makes a distinction between binary blobs (a collection of 8-bit values) and text (which is defined as UTF-8). [1] RFC-7049. Also checkout http://cbor.io/ http://cbor.io/
- sacheendra 9y ago
  IMHO the boilerplate code is much easier to read than understanding the nuances of XML if I have to read a document. {"type":"currency", "unit":"euro", "amount": 10} feels easier to understand than <currency unit="euro">10</currency>
  - DougWebb 9y ago
    How about: <rec type="currency" unit="euro" amount="10" /> I don't think your problem is with the syntax, necessarily. It seems more like you prefer name/value pairs over semantic markup.
zeveb 9y ago
Of course, JSON doesn't support complex numbers, bignums, rationals, cryptographic keys &c. And it'd be even worse than XML to try to represent programs in. JSON is definitely easier to decompose into a simple-to-manipulate bag-of-values than is XML.

dangerlibrary 9y ago

This is really only true in dynamically typed languages. From personal experience: parsing json in Java or Go without just treating everything as a bag of Object or an interface{} requires a ton of menial boilerplate work. Super nice in python/ruby/javascript, though.

moduspol 9y ago
Sure--it's kind of a pain in Swift, too. Wouldn't it just be worse with XML, though? I get that people don't realistically parse it themselves and libraries are smart enough to use schemas to deserialize, but there's nothing inherent about JSON that makes it unable to conform to a schema or be parsable by libraries into native strongly-typed objects the same way.
- mstade 9y ago
  Except JSON doesn't have semantics to describe schemas, only arrays, objects, strings, numbers and null. You can say "but this key is special" but then it's not JSON anymore. And if you're ok with that, may as well just use JSON-LD or some other JSON-like format.
kitsunesoba 9y ago
Swift 4 will have JSON encoding/decoding built in, and I wouldn't be surprised to see such a feature spring up in other modern languages too. Once that boilerplate is eliminated, json is a pretty decent solution. https://www.hackingwithswift.com/swift4 https://www.hackingwithswift.com/swift4
- moduspol 9y ago
  I am very stoked for this.
tveita 9y ago
> parsing json in Java or Go without just treating everything as a bag of Object or an interface{} requires a ton of menial boilerplate work. From my experience in Java it is pretty simple using a library like Jackson. You define the types you expect to read, maybe add some annotations, and then it's one function call to deserialize. IIRC Go has something similar in its json library.
- cdelsolar 9y ago
  Yes, it's arguably nicer in Go, because you specify exactly what types and field names you expect, and then it's just a simple json.Unmarshal
zokier 9y ago
Idk, I think JSON parsing is pretty ergonomic in Rust, definitely nicer than your typical XML DOM.

mstade 9y ago

Right, but you inevitably end up with boilerplate "massage" code around your data anyway. Case in point: dates, any number that isn't just a number e.g. currencies or big numbers, URLs, file paths, hex, hashes. Basically any type that carries any kind of semantics beyond array, object, string, number, or null will require this boilerplate, only that your data format has no way of describing them except for out-of-band specs, if you want to call them such. At least XML has schemas, and even if all you're doing is deserializing everything into JsonML like objects you're still better off because you'll have in-band metadata to point you in the right direction.

mstade 9y ago
Also, for what it's worth, your point is exactly why I mentioned E4X. Sure wasn't a panacea, but it had some things going for it.
- Marazan 9y ago
  E4X was exceedingly great. Loved it.
spc476 9y ago
CBOR [1] allows the semantic tagging of data values and makes a distinction between binary blobs (a collection of 8-bit values) and text (which is defined as UTF-8). [1] RFC-7049. Also checkout http://cbor.io/ http://cbor.io/
sacheendra 9y ago
IMHO the boilerplate code is much easier to read than understanding the nuances of XML if I have to read a document. {"type":"currency", "unit":"euro", "amount": 10} feels easier to understand than <currency unit="euro">10</currency>
- DougWebb 9y ago
  How about: <rec type="currency" unit="euro" amount="10" /> I don't think your problem is with the syntax, necessarily. It seems more like you prefer name/value pairs over semantic markup.

zeveb 9y ago

Of course, JSON doesn't support complex numbers, bignums, rationals, cryptographic keys &c. And it'd be even worse than XML to try to represent programs in. JSON is definitely easier to decompose into a simple-to-manipulate bag-of-values than is XML.