5 ms·

How is it clearly inferior? I prefer it to yours

shadowgovt 5y ago
Agreed. The patch key-value syntax is self-describing and extensible. The s-expression syntax's reliance on positional inputs is less self-describing and extension can only be done at the end of the s-expressions. And the s-expressions don't even solve the problem of terseness for wire-format reasons; protobufs beat them out in that category.
- dgb23 5y ago
  Neither sexpr nor JSON are self-describing. They are both dumb, barely more than syntax formats that you can build stuff on top of if you wish so, which then might be self-describing and extensible. With that said, there's EDN and fressian which solve the problems mentioned. In EDN you could encode an instruction like so for example `(replace :path "/foo" :value 1)` This reads like a function call because it is a representation of a function call. The semantics are already there. Even better you could use namespaced keywords and symbols where applicable and suddenly were in a world where we can convey context without nesting, out of bounds information/schema or funny string formats.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Self-describing, not self-documenting. I'm claiming that `"path": "foo", "value": "bar"` is a bit easier to pick up and learn than `["add" "/path" "value"]`. This is probably a personal-preference thing; speaking from years of slinging both JSON and elisp, I have to go to the docs to remember the contents of a JSON object far less often than I do to remember the relevant positional arguments to a defun.
- kazinator 5y ago
  Positional syntaxes are extensible: you can add new optional arguments at the tail end, such that when those are missing, the old behavior is provided. The JSON could use positional syntax, since JSON has [ ] arrays, and that would reduce its clutter. The S-exp could use keyword arguments; it would still be nicer. Note that if we do so, we still want the operation to be positionally determined; i.e. to be the first element. (patch (replace :path (baz) :value "boo") (add :path (hello bim) :value ("world")) (remove :path (foo))) JSON becomes even more verbose to achieve something like this ["op", {"kw1" : "arg", "kw2" : 3.1, ...}]
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    > you can add new optional arguments at the tail end I never claimed they weren't extensible. What you're describing as a feature I'm declaring a bug. Named syntaxes self-describe in a way positional syntaxes don't. (... he says as his IDE helpfully kicks in to tell him what each of the twelve arguments to this auto-generated Java object constructor are in his source code... ;) ). > JSON becomes even more verbose to achieve something like this It doesn't because it has key-value pairs as a top-level construct via the object type. LISP represents those by creating positional local dependencies between positional arguments (which is a fine solution, but at that point they're equivalently verbose and if I go with the JSON approach I can take advantage of the JSON libraries already existing in the client and server of my web applications). In an alternate universe where JavaScript had been just LISP, your approach would be great, but that ship sailed decades ago.
    - kazinator 5y ago
      > I never claimed they weren't extensible Yes you did because you claimed that it was an advantage of the original. The only purpose of such a remark would be to point out a contrast: extensibility is lost in Y, so I'm pointing out that X has it. > Named syntaxes self-describe That's nice but it doesn't connect with the extensibility point. Named can make it easy to know which argument is serving which role, if you already understand the function and its arguments, where you would otherwise have to remember the argument positions: like which of two identically typed arguments is the destination of the data transfer, the other being source. > It doesn't because it has key-value pairs as a top-level construct via the object type. Yes, but this object has no order; there is no way to indicate the first element so you have to use a keyword to indicate the operator too. I believe I communicated this with the example.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        > Yes you did because you claimed that it was an advantage of the original. The only purpose of such a remark would be to point out a contrast: extensibility is lost in Y, so I'm pointing out that X has it. My original claim was "The s-expression syntax's reliance on positional inputs is less self-describing and extension can only be done at the end of the s-expressions." You "solved" the issue of "positional inputs... less self-describing" by doubling the number of symbols in your s-expression example so that (with the exception of the first input) they are no longer positional. That doesn't actually solve the problem; it just demonstrates you can do named arguments in s-expressions too. Yes, of course you can; but why bother when my browser already supports JSON? > That's nice but it doesn't connect with the extensibility point Correct; they are two separate points. Positional inputs are less self-describing and also extension can only be done at the end of the s-expression. Two criticisms. > there is no way to indicate the first element so you have to use a keyword to indicate the operator too Technically, this is untrue; order doesn't matter since the operator can simply be any key that isn't already reserved. So `"add": true` would work to indicate an add stanza. But I would not recommend this approach. I'd just instead do what the RFC does and specify the operator as another argument: `"op": "add"`. The advantage to this approach (unlike yours) is that, indeed, order does not matter; I do not need the operator name to be the first thing in the list. The two approaches in the named-argument structure are just about equivalent, except that the JSON approach has the advantage that browsers already have built-in JSON support (which gives that format a huge practical advantage over introducing a novel s-expression format in this problem domain, unfortunately).
txru 5y ago
Generally, any time you have a pairing of an "op" to a variadic list of arguments in a transfer format, you have an s-expression. This method, like many others, introduces a bunch of new characters: - "op", "path", "value" - quotes around paths - colons, commas - curly braces In exchange for parentheses. More generally though, we have an isomorphism. If transformation between the forms is trivial, then use what form is more comfortable for you, but I think being able to identify the 'op' -> 'var-args' pairing is a good thing to keep an eye on. It's macros' bread and butter.
- bowsamic 5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
zeven7 5y ago
It's inferior because there's a bunch of useless clutter that gets in the way in the JSON patch version. For the same reason > If a person puts such a question to you as: ‘I have divided ten into two parts, and multiplying one of these by the other the result was twenty-one;’ then you know that one of the parts is thing and the other is ten minus thing. is inferior to > x(10-x)=21 The succinctness helps your brain focus on the important information so you don't get lost in the noise. If you find it hard to read at first, your brain can adapt to the patterns just fine.
- bowsamic 5y ago
  Now try reading your second equation out loud
  - zeven7 5y ago
    And? > X times open parenthesis ten minus X close parenthesis equals twenty one I'm not sure if your point is supposed to be that it's easier to understand if read another way or something, but no matter what the symbol version is the easiest for your brain (which is very good at pattern recognition) to see and pick up on. Maybe I missed your point, so you'll have to be explicit. By the way, I didn't contrive the example. I googled "before math notation" and chose it from the second result[1]. I had seen similar examples of what math looked like before notation, so I looked for an example. [1] http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2014/06/before_symbols.html http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2014/06...
    - bowsamic 5y ago
      Have you ever heard of the expression "comparing apples and oranges"?
      - zeven7 5y ago
        Yes, I have. I'd ask some clarification and respond to what I think your point is, but I see you're too clever to get to the point, so I'll move on.

Agreed. The patch key-value syntax is self-describing and extensible. The s-expression syntax's reliance on positional inputs is less self-describing and extension can only be done at the end of the s-expressions. And the s-expressions don't even solve the problem of terseness for wire-format reasons; protobufs beat them out in that category.

dgb23 5y ago
Neither sexpr nor JSON are self-describing. They are both dumb, barely more than syntax formats that you can build stuff on top of if you wish so, which then might be self-describing and extensible. With that said, there's EDN and fressian which solve the problems mentioned. In EDN you could encode an instruction like so for example `(replace :path "/foo" :value 1)` This reads like a function call because it is a representation of a function call. The semantics are already there. Even better you could use namespaced keywords and symbols where applicable and suddenly were in a world where we can convey context without nesting, out of bounds information/schema or funny string formats.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Self-describing, not self-documenting. I'm claiming that `"path": "foo", "value": "bar"` is a bit easier to pick up and learn than `["add" "/path" "value"]`. This is probably a personal-preference thing; speaking from years of slinging both JSON and elisp, I have to go to the docs to remember the contents of a JSON object far less often than I do to remember the relevant positional arguments to a defun.
kazinator 5y ago
Positional syntaxes are extensible: you can add new optional arguments at the tail end, such that when those are missing, the old behavior is provided. The JSON could use positional syntax, since JSON has [ ] arrays, and that would reduce its clutter. The S-exp could use keyword arguments; it would still be nicer. Note that if we do so, we still want the operation to be positionally determined; i.e. to be the first element. (patch (replace :path (baz) :value "boo") (add :path (hello bim) :value ("world")) (remove :path (foo))) JSON becomes even more verbose to achieve something like this ["op", {"kw1" : "arg", "kw2" : 3.1, ...}]
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  > you can add new optional arguments at the tail end I never claimed they weren't extensible. What you're describing as a feature I'm declaring a bug. Named syntaxes self-describe in a way positional syntaxes don't. (... he says as his IDE helpfully kicks in to tell him what each of the twelve arguments to this auto-generated Java object constructor are in his source code... ;) ). > JSON becomes even more verbose to achieve something like this It doesn't because it has key-value pairs as a top-level construct via the object type. LISP represents those by creating positional local dependencies between positional arguments (which is a fine solution, but at that point they're equivalently verbose and if I go with the JSON approach I can take advantage of the JSON libraries already existing in the client and server of my web applications). In an alternate universe where JavaScript had been just LISP, your approach would be great, but that ship sailed decades ago.
  - kazinator 5y ago
    > I never claimed they weren't extensible Yes you did because you claimed that it was an advantage of the original. The only purpose of such a remark would be to point out a contrast: extensibility is lost in Y, so I'm pointing out that X has it. > Named syntaxes self-describe That's nice but it doesn't connect with the extensibility point. Named can make it easy to know which argument is serving which role, if you already understand the function and its arguments, where you would otherwise have to remember the argument positions: like which of two identically typed arguments is the destination of the data transfer, the other being source. > It doesn't because it has key-value pairs as a top-level construct via the object type. Yes, but this object has no order; there is no way to indicate the first element so you have to use a keyword to indicate the operator too. I believe I communicated this with the example.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      > Yes you did because you claimed that it was an advantage of the original. The only purpose of such a remark would be to point out a contrast: extensibility is lost in Y, so I'm pointing out that X has it. My original claim was "The s-expression syntax's reliance on positional inputs is less self-describing and extension can only be done at the end of the s-expressions." You "solved" the issue of "positional inputs... less self-describing" by doubling the number of symbols in your s-expression example so that (with the exception of the first input) they are no longer positional. That doesn't actually solve the problem; it just demonstrates you can do named arguments in s-expressions too. Yes, of course you can; but why bother when my browser already supports JSON? > That's nice but it doesn't connect with the extensibility point Correct; they are two separate points. Positional inputs are less self-describing and also extension can only be done at the end of the s-expression. Two criticisms. > there is no way to indicate the first element so you have to use a keyword to indicate the operator too Technically, this is untrue; order doesn't matter since the operator can simply be any key that isn't already reserved. So `"add": true` would work to indicate an add stanza. But I would not recommend this approach. I'd just instead do what the RFC does and specify the operator as another argument: `"op": "add"`. The advantage to this approach (unlike yours) is that, indeed, order does not matter; I do not need the operator name to be the first thing in the list. The two approaches in the named-argument structure are just about equivalent, except that the JSON approach has the advantage that browsers already have built-in JSON support (which gives that format a huge practical advantage over introducing a novel s-expression format in this problem domain, unfortunately).

txru 5y ago

Generally, any time you have a pairing of an "op" to a variadic list of arguments in a transfer format, you have an s-expression. This method, like many others, introduces a bunch of new characters: - "op", "path", "value" - quotes around paths - colons, commas - curly braces In exchange for parentheses. More generally though, we have an isomorphism. If transformation between the forms is trivial, then use what form is more comfortable for you, but I think being able to identify the 'op' -> 'var-args' pairing is a good thing to keep an eye on. It's macros' bread and butter.

bowsamic 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

zeven7 5y ago

It's inferior because there's a bunch of useless clutter that gets in the way in the JSON patch version. For the same reason > If a person puts such a question to you as: ‘I have divided ten into two parts, and multiplying one of these by the other the result was twenty-one;’ then you know that one of the parts is thing and the other is ten minus thing. is inferior to > x(10-x)=21 The succinctness helps your brain focus on the important information so you don't get lost in the noise. If you find it hard to read at first, your brain can adapt to the patterns just fine.

bowsamic 5y ago
Now try reading your second equation out loud
- zeven7 5y ago
  And? > X times open parenthesis ten minus X close parenthesis equals twenty one I'm not sure if your point is supposed to be that it's easier to understand if read another way or something, but no matter what the symbol version is the easiest for your brain (which is very good at pattern recognition) to see and pick up on. Maybe I missed your point, so you'll have to be explicit. By the way, I didn't contrive the example. I googled "before math notation" and chose it from the second result[1]. I had seen similar examples of what math looked like before notation, so I looked for an example. [1] http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2014/06/before_symbols.html http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2014/06...
  - bowsamic 5y ago
    Have you ever heard of the expression "comparing apples and oranges"?
    - zeven7 5y ago
      Yes, I have. I'd ask some clarification and respond to what I think your point is, but I see you're too clever to get to the point, so I'll move on.