4 ms·

Ehhhh, is it hitting those limitations? I've yet to run into a problem in which would be solved by adding Enterprise™ silliness. And is it following in XML's s

Ehhhh, is it hitting those limitations? I've yet to run into a problem in which would be solved by adding Enterprise™ silliness. And is it following in XML's shoes? I've not had to work on or integrate with any systems that did this Enterprise™ silliness either. Now granted, I'm fairly separated from the world of IBM and SAP type companies, and I'm sure there's all sorts of unholy abuse of JSON going on in a dark server room somewhere, but the answer in most cases is just to choose technology stacks that don't do that to you. These problems are generally self-imposed rather than imposed by the technology.

falcolas 6y ago
> Ehhhh, is it hitting those limitations? Yes. Some folks, even at my relatively small company, are using JSON and also pushing for extensive schema use. JSON - just like XML - allows you to use its vanilla form. But the additional tools are available if/when you need them, because the need exists.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  Just because people are pushing for them doesn't mean they are needed. I have no idea what your needs are, so maybe they are needed at your company. All I can say is, I've never come across a need for them but I have met a lot of people who just want to try things out because they think it might be cool.
kstrauser 6y ago
> Ehhhh, is it hitting those limitations? I've yet to run into a problem in which would be solved by adding Enterprise™ silliness. I think that's why JSON won: it was first and foremost and engineer-driven standard as opposed to one that incubated inside a bunch of enterprises before being dropped on an unsuspecting world.
- falcolas 6y ago
  SGML, XML's predecessor, was definitely engineer built (the wiki page is interesting). It just paved the same path that JSON is now traversing. Given that XML is roughly 34 years old (or GML, which was SGML's predecessor and is about 60 years old), give JSON just a bit more time to get to the same level of 'blech'.

falcolas 6y ago

> Ehhhh, is it hitting those limitations? Yes. Some folks, even at my relatively small company, are using JSON and also pushing for extensive schema use. JSON - just like XML - allows you to use its vanilla form. But the additional tools are available if/when you need them, because the need exists.

kerkeslager 6y ago
Just because people are pushing for them doesn't mean they are needed. I have no idea what your needs are, so maybe they are needed at your company. All I can say is, I've never come across a need for them but I have met a lot of people who just want to try things out because they think it might be cool.

kstrauser 6y ago

> Ehhhh, is it hitting those limitations? I've yet to run into a problem in which would be solved by adding Enterprise™ silliness. I think that's why JSON won: it was first and foremost and engineer-driven standard as opposed to one that incubated inside a bunch of enterprises before being dropped on an unsuspecting world.

falcolas 6y ago
SGML, XML's predecessor, was definitely engineer built (the wiki page is interesting). It just paved the same path that JSON is now traversing. Given that XML is roughly 34 years old (or GML, which was SGML's predecessor and is about 60 years old), give JSON just a bit more time to get to the same level of 'blech'.