3 ms·
> Don't waste time on discussions within a level. I disagree with this. YAML has too many footguns (boolean conversions being the first among them) not to ment
by sgeisenh 1y ago
> Don't waste time on discussions within a level.
I disagree with this. YAML has too many footguns (boolean conversions being the first among them) not to mention it is a superset of JSON. Plain old JSON or TOML are much simpler.
- xelxebar 1y ago> YAML has too many footguns (boolean conversions being the first among them) Copying my own comment from elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43670716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43670716. This has been fixed since 2009 with YAML 1.2. The problem is that everyone uses libyaml (_e.g._ PyYAML _etc._) which is stuck on 1.1 for reasons. The 1.2 spec just treats all scalar types as opaque strings, along with a configurable mechanism[0] for auto-converting non-quoted scalars if you so please. As such, I really don't quite grok why upstream libraries haven't moved to YAML 1.2. Would love to hear details from anyone with more info. [0]:https://yaml.org/spec/1.2.2/#chapter-10-recommended-schemas https://yaml.org/spec/1.2.2/#chapter-10-recommended-schemas
- sevensor 1y agoLack of nulls in toml is a headache. No two yaml libraries agree on what a given yaml text means. Although json is bad at numbers, that’s more easily worked around.