3 ms·
> Don't waste time on discussions within a level. For example, JSON and YAML both have their problems and pitfalls but both are probably good enough. Disagree.
by 18172828286177 2y ago
> Don't waste time on discussions within a level. For example, JSON and YAML both have their problems and pitfalls but both are probably good enough.
Disagree. YAML is considerably easier to work with than JSON, and it’s worth dying on that hill.
- MOARDONGZPLZ 2y agoI love that there is one comment saying JSON is better, and then yours saying YAML is better.
- drewcoo 2y agoTo be fair, both say "don't waste time" on it.
- dijksterhuis 2y agoanchors/aliases/overrides are one of my favourite yaml features. i've done so much configuration de-duplication with them, it's unreal.
- zzo38computer 2y agoI don't really like either format (I am not sure which is worse; both have significant problems). YAML has some problems (such as Norway problem and many other problems with the syntax), and JSON has different problems; and some problems are shared between both of them. Unicode is one problem that both of them have. Numbers are a problem in some implementations of JSON but it is not required. (Many other formats have some of these problems too, such as using Unicode, and using floating numbers and not integers, etc.) I think DER is better (for structured data), although it is a binary format, but it is in canonical form. I made up the TER format which is a text format which you can compile to DER, and some additional types which can be used (such as a key/value list type). While Unicode is supported, there are other (sometimes better) character sets which you can also use. (However, not all configuration files need structured data, and sometimes programs are also useful to include, and these and other considerations are also relevant for other formats, so not everything should use the same file formats anyways.)