4 ms·
The underlying idea was that this self describing format would enable easy interoperability. It wasn’t 100% wrong since before standards like this you had a mil
by api 4y ago
The underlying idea was that this self describing format would enable easy interoperability. It wasn’t 100% wrong since before standards like this you had a million ugly bespoke formats and fragile CSV formats.
In the end it was JSON plus API description and generation tooling that delivered, though XML lives on under the hood in lots of places. It’s usually used for cases closer to markup like word processor documents or for very complex configuration files.
Hype is just something you have to get used to in this industry. It’s really bad. Any new thing usually gives birth to a wave of breathless unhinged hype whose main purpose is to get corporate purchasers and VCs to cough up money.
- oblio 4y agoI'd argue that (JSON plus API description and generation tooling) didn't really deliver everything. XML has schemas and validation as part of the main standard. JSON still doesn't have that. There are some things tacked on that 90% of people don't use. XML has comments, JSON doesn't (!). JSON is okish and it's easy to pick up. As Visual Basic, Javascript, PHP, Ruby, Python, Golang have proved, convenience at the start beats almost everything else.
- butlerm 4y agoI am not under the impression that JSON has replaced XML as a data interchange format for general usage at all. It is useful for APIs, problematic for configuration files, and relatively uncommon as a file format. I don't think there is any risk of SVG being supplanted by a JSON equivalent for example, nor most business data interchange formats either.