4 ms·
Well, unless you need to deal with datetimes or timestamps. And it suffers from the same repeated-metadata problem that XML does. It’s easy for JavaScript users
by gaius 8y ago
Well, unless you need to deal with datetimes or timestamps. And it suffers from the same repeated-metadata problem that XML does. It’s easy for JavaScript users, that’s it’s main purpose. For serialised data either at rest or on the wire there are dozens of better formats e.g. HDF5. Or even ASN.1.
- majewsky 8y ago> It’s easy for JavaScript users, that’s it’s main purpose. I'm writing Go applications that talk to Python applications with (you guessed it) JSON-over-HTTP. Saying that JSON is only for JS users is like saying the iPhone is only for people that need to make calls. > For serialised data either at rest or on the wire there are dozens of better formats e.g. HDF5. Or even ASN.1. A huge advantage of JSON is that it is human-readable and human-writable without extra tooling (although an indenter sure makes things easier on the eye). Also, I recall ASN.1 parsers being a rich well of RCE bugs.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 8y agoRepeated metadata is just one of XML serializations, although the most common one. But there are technologies to compress XML and compression based on schema may give very compact results.