4 ms·

There's no such thing as a “JSON Object” (2010)

• eternityforest 4y ago
  When I say or hear "JSON Object", I assume the meaning is "Data of the sort that could be serialized and deserialized to JSON". In being so common, JSON implicitly specifies a type of data model, and most other similar serialization formats seem to be supersets of it. It also(at least to me) implies that the object is very dynamic. A json object is usually something self describing. You can add a key without any kind of protobuf type recompile step. Maybe you can even extend a protocol with nonstandard keys if you're careful about collisions. And it's meant to be sent over freeform channels like json or msgpack, and constrained (at most) by a schema. It's not quite technically correct, but I'm not sure what else carries the same common meaning. Perhaps "JSON-like data"?
• janmarsal 4y ago
  I'm still gonna call them JSON objects.
• Hackbraten 4y ago
  Some non-Javascript frameworks (e.g. Jackson for Java) offer an object model to represent parsed JSON (e.g. TextNode, JsonArray, JsonObject). When talking about those objects, e.g. while pairing over some JSON migration logic, I’ve found it helpful to refer to them as “JSON objects” in order to distinguish those from the native object model of the language.
• beardyw 4y ago
  No mention of circular references (or the lack of them) which I think is relevant.