3 ms·

Adding a schema meta language just creates unnecessary complexity. Instead of 1 language now there's two. If you're going to invent a new language like json-s

Adding a schema meta language just creates unnecessary complexity. Instead of 1 language now there's two. If you're going to invent a new language like json-schema, you might as well skip to json2. People who care about schemas already enforce this at the serialization layer where the objects being mapped to implicitly are the schema. Pushing the schema down to the protocol just adds complexity and bloat.

hyperpallium 7y ago
> the objects being mapped to implicitly are the schema Dynamic languages don't have an enforced schema. You can do it manually, but a schema is easier, special-purpose, declarative. Plus, data schema languages are typically far more expressive than programming languages. e.g. java doesn't even have nonnullable (which C had, as non-typedef structs). They're closer to a database schema.