5 ms·

It's a real shame that both XML and JSON eclipsed the real data format for the ages: S-expressions. I hope it's only temporary, though: there really is no good

by zeveb 6y ago

It's a real shame that both XML and JSON eclipsed the real data format for the ages: S-expressions. I hope it's only temporary, though: there really is no good reason the prefer JSON other than everyone else using it, and if one gets into a novel enough domain then there isn't an everyone else doing anything to worry about yet. S-expressions have the advantage of not containing the redundant object type (there's no need for an object, map or dictionary when one has alists or plists), and the even greater advantage of elegantly representing code. Also they are easier to write parsers for.

slim 6y ago
real s-expressions end with /s
teddyh 6y ago
There was this: http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Sexp.txt http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Sexp.txt but it was never even accepted as an RFC, it seems.
- blackrock 6y ago
  Very interesting. Did anyone else look at this, and think it was super complicated, at first glance? You’d have to be an expert in the data exchange format itself. I can see why Lisp style syntax is bad for human comprehension. It’s because of the lack of an explicit delimiter, like a comma. I don’t think human eyes are very good at using a single space character, as a delimiter. And with this format, you’d have to agree upon the data exchange structure. There would have to be a master key somewhere, maybe as the header. Albeit, this format is far more efficient than XML. But, XML probably won out because it was explicit, and allowed multiple levels of nesting, but at the expense of overly wordy delimiter tags. And JSON made it simpler, by forcing it to be a lightweight key-value pair. It’s too bad something like this didn’t take root and become more popular. This might be a very useful advanced data exchange format for some scenarios. Although the headaches and problems associated with trying to understand, and work with it, might far outweigh its efficiency benefits.
blackrock 6y ago
Please provide more details, insights, anecdotes, and examples of why you think S-expressions are superior.

by zeveb 6y ago

slim 6y ago

real s-expressions end with /s

teddyh 6y ago

There was this: http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Sexp.txt http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Sexp.txt but it was never even accepted as an RFC, it seems.

blackrock 6y ago
Very interesting. Did anyone else look at this, and think it was super complicated, at first glance? You’d have to be an expert in the data exchange format itself. I can see why Lisp style syntax is bad for human comprehension. It’s because of the lack of an explicit delimiter, like a comma. I don’t think human eyes are very good at using a single space character, as a delimiter. And with this format, you’d have to agree upon the data exchange structure. There would have to be a master key somewhere, maybe as the header. Albeit, this format is far more efficient than XML. But, XML probably won out because it was explicit, and allowed multiple levels of nesting, but at the expense of overly wordy delimiter tags. And JSON made it simpler, by forcing it to be a lightweight key-value pair. It’s too bad something like this didn’t take root and become more popular. This might be a very useful advanced data exchange format for some scenarios. Although the headaches and problems associated with trying to understand, and work with it, might far outweigh its efficiency benefits.

blackrock 6y ago

Please provide more details, insights, anecdotes, and examples of why you think S-expressions are superior.