6 ms·

Many of those original comments were pretty spot on though. Maybe the constructive criticism you need sometimes is “don’t do this” JSON is useful partially bec

by vlunkr 4y ago

Many of those original comments were pretty spot on though. Maybe the constructive criticism you need sometimes is “don’t do this” JSON is useful partially because it’s easy to parse, so parsers already exist in every language. Extending the syntax is undoing all the communal work, and encroaching on grounds that YAML and other languages already cover.

bobthepanda 4y ago
This seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. > Extending the syntax is undoing all the communal work JSON5 takes stuff from ES5.1 and adds it to JSON, and ES5 is backwards-compatible with older JS. This means it's fairly trivial to convert JSON5 to JSON (literally 13 lines: https://gist.github.com/iddan/3d34b12f6b22c30a8a07c149b3175e2f https://gist.github.com/iddan/3d34b12f6b22c30a8a07c149b3175e...). And ES5.1 itself was the product of communal work. > encroaching on grounds that YAML and other languages already cover. I don't know that we should really start dividing features into nice little boxes so no one steps on each other's toes. Trying different solutions for the same problem can eventually bring us more optimal solutions than if we just sat around twiddling our thumbs because 'it's been done'. It's not like there's an army knocking on your door going "switch to JSON5 or we'll kick your teeth in." People can stick with what they want to do on the merits, but I don't see that as a reason to shut down others' work.
- jhardy54 4y ago
  > This means it's fairly trivial to convert JSON5 to JSON (literally 13 lines: https://gist.github.com/iddan/3d34b12f6b22c30a8a07c149b3175e2f https://gist.github.com/iddan/3d34b12f6b22c30a8a07c149b3175e...). Did you paste the correct link? This just plumbs together an existing JSON 5 parser with a JSON 4 serializer. How many lines does this take without importing a library the solves this for you?
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    JSON5 parse constructs a Javascript object, which can in turn be serialized by JSON 4 into valid plain JSON string. That's not an invalid way of converting the two objects. JSON.stringify is part of the standard JS spec: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/JSON/stringify https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe... JSON5.parse() is part of JSON5's API: https://json5.org/#json5parse https://json5.org/#json5parse So any project that includes both standard JS and JSON5 could literally copy and paste this code. You're still importing JSON5, but you would presumably have to do that anyways to use JSON5.
    - MauranKilom 4y ago
      > So any project that includes both standard JS and JSON5 could literally copy and paste this code is not a convincing reply to > so parsers already exist in every language
    - Falkon1313 4y ago
      Personally, I like some of the ideas of JSON5, but it isn't compatible with JSON as implemented. Altering existing systems to use it isn't as trivial as you imply. And requires taking on new dependencies. You'd have to rewrite anything using json_encode() and json_decode() in PHP, or the equivalent standard functions/methods in Python, C#, etc. And also take on another dependency. And maybe lose performance. And then you sometimes may have to know whether you're dealing with JSON or JSON5, and what the program on the other end of the line produces or expects and can handle. For new greenfield projects it might be worthwhile. But most of the world runs on legacy code and many prefer to stick to the standards and minimize dependencies. So it's not that simple. That doesn't mean it's bad though. Like anything else in software, it's a trade-off.
    - jhardy54 4y ago
      What about the vast majority of languages that aren’t JavaScript?
- arinlen 4y ago
  > JSON5 takes stuff from ES5.1 and adds it to JSON, and ES5 is backwards-compatible with older JS. This means it's fairly trivial to convert JSON5 to JSON (literally 13 lines). This take is disingenuous and horribly uninformed and very shortsighted. Not every parser out there is JavaScript eval(). Some people actually had to write and maintain a parser in whatever programming language they have to work with. In the past I wrote a JSON parser for a low-level language, and back then I had to write the letter and parser by hand. Each change to accepted JSON values meant I had to add at least one terminal token, update the grammar to include it, and update the data model to support yet another type. Adding comments would either require adding a terminal token to be ignored, or rewrite the data model to support positional items that cursors/iterators could or could not skip. These are not 13LoC changes. At all. And if I happen to be consuming an API I don't control which for God knows what reason decided to move to json5, I would either have to rush a parser to production or remain down.
  - h0l0cube 4y ago
    I agree with your point here (but I'm not the GP). The main thrust of the article is about finding product/market fit, and it could be said here that the market isn't the parser writers, who would be disrupted, but the developers who want a JSON format with better ergonomics. > And if I happen to be consuming an API I don't control which for God knows what reason decided to move to json5 And such a decision might be the API maintainers not understanding their users.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      It's no longer better ergonomics if you can't use it at all because half your endpoints don't support it, and the reason they don't support it is not mere neutral time or popularity but a result of the fact that the new form no longer posesses the qualities that made the original form useful. This really does look like a case of missing a point and proceeding with a bad idea that results in an all around increase in harm, because no matter the idea, there will always be at least a few adopters and then everyone else has to deal with it. If it's allowed for anyone to come up with any new idea they want, then it has to be equally allowed for others to criticize. Anything else is literally not sane. It's perfectly likely the "haters" are right and the idea is bad and should not be adopted or proliferate. It's also possible they are merely unthinking haters. But calling them "haters" is not a valid defense of the idea.

by vlunkr 4y ago

bobthepanda 4y ago

This seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. > Extending the syntax is undoing all the communal work JSON5 takes stuff from ES5.1 and adds it to JSON, and ES5 is backwards-compatible with older JS. This means it's fairly trivial to convert JSON5 to JSON (literally 13 lines: https://gist.github.com/iddan/3d34b12f6b22c30a8a07c149b3175e2f https://gist.github.com/iddan/3d34b12f6b22c30a8a07c149b3175e...). And ES5.1 itself was the product of communal work. > encroaching on grounds that YAML and other languages already cover. I don't know that we should really start dividing features into nice little boxes so no one steps on each other's toes. Trying different solutions for the same problem can eventually bring us more optimal solutions than if we just sat around twiddling our thumbs because 'it's been done'. It's not like there's an army knocking on your door going "switch to JSON5 or we'll kick your teeth in." People can stick with what they want to do on the merits, but I don't see that as a reason to shut down others' work.

jhardy54 4y ago
> This means it's fairly trivial to convert JSON5 to JSON (literally 13 lines: https://gist.github.com/iddan/3d34b12f6b22c30a8a07c149b3175e2f https://gist.github.com/iddan/3d34b12f6b22c30a8a07c149b3175e...). Did you paste the correct link? This just plumbs together an existing JSON 5 parser with a JSON 4 serializer. How many lines does this take without importing a library the solves this for you?
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  JSON5 parse constructs a Javascript object, which can in turn be serialized by JSON 4 into valid plain JSON string. That's not an invalid way of converting the two objects. JSON.stringify is part of the standard JS spec: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/JSON/stringify https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe... JSON5.parse() is part of JSON5's API: https://json5.org/#json5parse https://json5.org/#json5parse So any project that includes both standard JS and JSON5 could literally copy and paste this code. You're still importing JSON5, but you would presumably have to do that anyways to use JSON5.
  - MauranKilom 4y ago
    > So any project that includes both standard JS and JSON5 could literally copy and paste this code is not a convincing reply to > so parsers already exist in every language
  - Falkon1313 4y ago
    Personally, I like some of the ideas of JSON5, but it isn't compatible with JSON as implemented. Altering existing systems to use it isn't as trivial as you imply. And requires taking on new dependencies. You'd have to rewrite anything using json_encode() and json_decode() in PHP, or the equivalent standard functions/methods in Python, C#, etc. And also take on another dependency. And maybe lose performance. And then you sometimes may have to know whether you're dealing with JSON or JSON5, and what the program on the other end of the line produces or expects and can handle. For new greenfield projects it might be worthwhile. But most of the world runs on legacy code and many prefer to stick to the standards and minimize dependencies. So it's not that simple. That doesn't mean it's bad though. Like anything else in software, it's a trade-off.
  - jhardy54 4y ago
    What about the vast majority of languages that aren’t JavaScript?
arinlen 4y ago
> JSON5 takes stuff from ES5.1 and adds it to JSON, and ES5 is backwards-compatible with older JS. This means it's fairly trivial to convert JSON5 to JSON (literally 13 lines). This take is disingenuous and horribly uninformed and very shortsighted. Not every parser out there is JavaScript eval(). Some people actually had to write and maintain a parser in whatever programming language they have to work with. In the past I wrote a JSON parser for a low-level language, and back then I had to write the letter and parser by hand. Each change to accepted JSON values meant I had to add at least one terminal token, update the grammar to include it, and update the data model to support yet another type. Adding comments would either require adding a terminal token to be ignored, or rewrite the data model to support positional items that cursors/iterators could or could not skip. These are not 13LoC changes. At all. And if I happen to be consuming an API I don't control which for God knows what reason decided to move to json5, I would either have to rush a parser to production or remain down.
- h0l0cube 4y ago
  I agree with your point here (but I'm not the GP). The main thrust of the article is about finding product/market fit, and it could be said here that the market isn't the parser writers, who would be disrupted, but the developers who want a JSON format with better ergonomics. > And if I happen to be consuming an API I don't control which for God knows what reason decided to move to json5 And such a decision might be the API maintainers not understanding their users.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    It's no longer better ergonomics if you can't use it at all because half your endpoints don't support it, and the reason they don't support it is not mere neutral time or popularity but a result of the fact that the new form no longer posesses the qualities that made the original form useful. This really does look like a case of missing a point and proceeding with a bad idea that results in an all around increase in harm, because no matter the idea, there will always be at least a few adopters and then everyone else has to deal with it. If it's allowed for anyone to come up with any new idea they want, then it has to be equally allowed for others to criticize. Anything else is literally not sane. It's perfectly likely the "haters" are right and the idea is bad and should not be adopted or proliferate. It's also possible they are merely unthinking haters. But calling them "haters" is not a valid defense of the idea.