3 ms·
Am I the only one that finds the use of "stringify" as the method name to serialise a data structure a bit... unsavoury on the tongue? A touch Mickey Mouse? I a
by harel 1y ago
Am I the only one that finds the use of "stringify" as the method name to serialise a data structure a bit... unsavoury on the tongue? A touch Mickey Mouse? I always wondered why this word was chosen for something so "core".
- sphars 1y agoAccording to the guy who created JavaScript, Brendan Eich[0]: > On Nov 16, 2008, at 11:57 PM, Peter Michaux wrote: > > The name "JSON.stringify" seems a little too "Web 2.0" cool to me. > Hardly. It's hacker dictionary material, old sk00l. > > Is there any reason a more usual and serious sounding option like "serialize" was not used? > Ugh, Web 1.0 my-first-Java-serializable-implementation anti-nostalgia vapors. [0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20100718152229/https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-November/008121.html https://web.archive.org/web/20100718152229/https://mail.mozi...
- harel 1y agoThat's exactly it though - That's the word: A bit too web 2.0.... Serialize, Marshal, toString: timeless. Stringify: Trendy, gone with the winds...
- falconertc 1y agoWhen the next best option is "serialize", suddenly stringify doesn't seem so bad. I would prefer a silly-sounding but immediately clear function to a more abstract concept.