3 ms·

It drops the most useful aspect of JSON, which is that you can open it in a text editor. It's like JSON in that it's a serialisation format.

• PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  And here I was thinking serialization was the most useful aspect of json (and it's not even great at that)
  • majewsky 2y ago
    Serialization is what it is, not why it is useful. The most useful aspect of JSON is undoubtedly wide support (historically, that every web browser carried a parser implementation from day 1; contemporarily, the availability as a library in nearly every programming language, often in std, plus shell accessibility through jq).
    • PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      > Serialization is what it is, not why it is useful. Is there a non-teleological manner in which to evaluate standards? > The most useful aspect of JSON is undoubtedly wide support This is a fantastic example of how widespread technology doesn't imply quality. Don't get me wrong, I love JSON. It's a useful format with many implementations of varying quality. But it's also a major pain in the ass to deal with: encoding errors, syntax errors, no byte syntax, schemas are horribly implemented. It's used because it's popular, not because it has some particular benefit. In fact, I'd argue JSON's largest benefit as opposed to competitive serializers has been to not give a fuck about the quality of (de)serialization. Who gives a fuck about the semantics of parsing a number when that's your problem?!?