4 ms·

Sympathies to your valid concerns ... Though Java was 'designed', it was not 'designed' to be an http/web server. JS, particularly Node.js has really adapted

Sympathies to your valid concerns ... Though Java was 'designed', it was not 'designed' to be an http/web server. JS, particularly Node.js has really adapted itself to that well. And one small but massive difference: JSON is how data is passed and it fits seamlessly into Javascript, and doing JSON in Java is an ugly, ugly thing. As soon as you compare not JS/Java, but Java/Tomcat vs. JS/NodeJS - then you get a different comparison. I quite like using Typescript on Node.js over Java - development speed is faster, and this is a really important thing.

adrianN 8y ago
JSON is how some data is passed today. It's certainly not the best way and might go out of style just like XML did a while ago.
- gwillz 8y ago
  I was reading something on HN recently and I ended up on this wiki article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion_laughs_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion_laughs_attack It got me thinking about it. JSON is annoyingly simple at times, yes. But that also protects it from some pretty gnarly stuff seen in XML and YAML. I suspect it's a considerable contributor as to why it's the choice transport format. I wouldn't toss it in with XML just yet.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  It is already on its way out, thanks to gRPC and need for performance instead of parsing text all the time. It is only a matter of browsers getting native support for gRPC.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    It's available now! Yay! [1] With gPRC there's still a lot of binding code, and you need to map all of that in Java, but you do get some validation etc. out of it. It does make the 'data transfer' comparison a little less harsh. [1] https://github.com/grpc/grpc-web https://github.com/grpc/grpc-web
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Not really, I meant as browser builtin API, implemented in native code.
      - sonnyblarney 8y ago
        No, that's not on the roadmap and I doubt it ever will be. It's a very specific technology, and as long as it can be implemented fairly efficiently 'up the stack' in JS, then it mostly belongs there. Aside from HTTP2 (which is a roadblock now, but not soon) it'll be fine in JS.
spricket 8y ago
I actually like gRPC better than JSON these days so it saves me from that pain, code just gets generated for you. But yeah json is much nicer in JS generally
Traubenfuchs 8y ago
> doing JSON in Java is an ugly, ugly thing Why do you think so? Jackson and Gson work very well. Serialising and deserialising from/to POJO/JSON is trivial with them.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  JSON and Javascript data objects are essentially directly interchangeable. In Java, you have to abstract the document and write a lot of code to access, add, remove things etc. - or - because there is no such thing as an untyped POJO in java, you have to set up a ton of things if you want to use real objects.
  - Traubenfuchs 8y ago
    Instead of using a typed POJO you can deserialize/serialize a Map<String, Object>. You could also use a POJO for the fields you know and put a map inside for the fields you don't know. If that's not enough you can use JsonNode, or ObjectNode where you can freely add and remove json values.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      Ok, touché, good point.

adrianN 8y ago

JSON is how some data is passed today. It's certainly not the best way and might go out of style just like XML did a while ago.

gwillz 8y ago
I was reading something on HN recently and I ended up on this wiki article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion_laughs_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion_laughs_attack It got me thinking about it. JSON is annoyingly simple at times, yes. But that also protects it from some pretty gnarly stuff seen in XML and YAML. I suspect it's a considerable contributor as to why it's the choice transport format. I wouldn't toss it in with XML just yet.
pjmlp 8y ago
It is already on its way out, thanks to gRPC and need for performance instead of parsing text all the time. It is only a matter of browsers getting native support for gRPC.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  It's available now! Yay! [1] With gPRC there's still a lot of binding code, and you need to map all of that in Java, but you do get some validation etc. out of it. It does make the 'data transfer' comparison a little less harsh. [1] https://github.com/grpc/grpc-web https://github.com/grpc/grpc-web
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Not really, I meant as browser builtin API, implemented in native code.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      No, that's not on the roadmap and I doubt it ever will be. It's a very specific technology, and as long as it can be implemented fairly efficiently 'up the stack' in JS, then it mostly belongs there. Aside from HTTP2 (which is a roadblock now, but not soon) it'll be fine in JS.

spricket 8y ago

I actually like gRPC better than JSON these days so it saves me from that pain, code just gets generated for you. But yeah json is much nicer in JS generally

Traubenfuchs 8y ago

> doing JSON in Java is an ugly, ugly thing Why do you think so? Jackson and Gson work very well. Serialising and deserialising from/to POJO/JSON is trivial with them.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
JSON and Javascript data objects are essentially directly interchangeable. In Java, you have to abstract the document and write a lot of code to access, add, remove things etc. - or - because there is no such thing as an untyped POJO in java, you have to set up a ton of things if you want to use real objects.
- Traubenfuchs 8y ago
  Instead of using a typed POJO you can deserialize/serialize a Map<String, Object>. You could also use a POJO for the fields you know and put a map inside for the fields you don't know. If that's not enough you can use JsonNode, or ObjectNode where you can freely add and remove json values.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Ok, touché, good point.