3 ms·

Nonsense. This is just more arrogance. JSON is code because I use it as code. It's not your business to tell me it's not code -- you haven't seen how I'm using

by wissler 13y ago

Nonsense. This is just more arrogance. JSON is code because I use it as code. It's not your business to tell me it's not code -- you haven't seen how I'm using it. And don't go chirping that I should only do things your way, it's none of your god damned business what I'm using it for. Further, if JSON was really only data, then it's an incredibly stupid way to store data, given that it has a human-readable syntax that the computer can only deal with after it's been parsed. As data, it's bloated and inefficient. To the extent that JSON is a good format, it's code. To the extent that it's data, it's not a good format.

DominikR 13y ago
A fork can be a spoon for you, if you choose to use it that way. Nobody is telling you what you are supposed to use it for, but still JSON was designed as data format. If you don't like the format or feel that JSON is too restrictive/bad feel free to extend it or create your own format from scratch.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  > still JSON was designed as data format While I don't think that comments belong in JSON, I don't agree JSON is designed as "data and not code" format. Trees of tokens are actually the natural format for writing code (also known as Abstract Syntax Trees, AST) and the data/code distinction is really, really blury when those two meet together, so it's only to be expected that people will end up coding in JSON (what are the 'build definition' files for various build tools / package managers, if not very simple programs)?
dragonwriter 13y ago
> JSON is code because I use it as code You could use JSON as code, but that's somewhat silly, because there's already a superset of JSON designed for that use.
- nonchalance 13y ago
  Technically not true: http://timelessrepo.com/json-isnt-a-javascript-subset http://timelessrepo.com/json-isnt-a-javascript-subset {"JSON":"ro cks!"} (there's a unicode line separator -- 2028)
IanCal 13y ago
You can use a screwdriver as a hammer all you want, it's not going to make it a good idea. This isn't a free speech issue. > Further, if JSON was really only data, then it's an incredibly stupid way to store data, given that it has a human-readable syntax that the computer can only deal with after it's been parsed. As data, it's bloated and inefficient. So use something else. Also, a computer can only read any file after it's been parsed in some way. I'm not really sure what you're suggesting as an alternative. > To the extent that JSON is a good format, it's code Is it executable? Is it turing complete?
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  > Is it executable? Is it turing complete? It represents groups of more-less arbitrary tokens as trees, therefore it's a natural format for code representation as it's equivalent to an AST, therefore it's trivial to attach a basic execution context with if and lambda defined, and now it's executable and turing-complete.
  - IanCal 13y ago
    So any indented text file would be considered code?
defen 13y ago
> JSON is code because I use it as code You can't use JSON to compute things, therefore it is not code (unless you are willing to concede that any document format is code).
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  > unless you are willing to concede that any document format is code Because it is. Data vs. code distinction is arbitrary. The following sequence of characters: "echo 'foobar';" can be interpreted as describing a string, a series of tokens, a piece of code, a piece of music or a small icon, whatever interpretation you choose.
  - defen 13y ago
    Yes, I understand that "code is data". This does not mean that data, in general, is code; unless you are willing to make the words completely meaningless. "Code" requires some notion of an execution platform/environment, which does not exist for arbitrary data. Here is a string: "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog". Or how about "\u0000\u0000". That is not code, as generally understood.
    - TeMPOraL 13y ago
      > "Code" requires some notion of an execution platform/environment, which does not exist for arbitrary data. Arbitrary data don't exist without some notion of an execution (or interpretation) platform. We tend to use "code" as a word for "commands telling some execution process what to do" and "data" as a word for "information that is meant to be transformed" but in reality this distinction is meaningless; both are fundamentally the same thing, and even our "code" vs. "data" words have blurry borders. It's very apparent when you start reading configuration files. For example, aren't Ant "configuration files" essentially programs[0]? We all know what we usually mean in context by saying what is "code" vs. what is "data", but one has to remember, that in fact they are the same - minding it leads to insights like metaprogramming. Forgetting about it leads to dumb languages and nasty problems, and is generally not wise. [0] - the answer is: yes, they are, see http://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/lisp.html http://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/lisp.html for more. ETA: Questions to ponder: - are regular expressions code, or data? - is source written in Prolog code, or data? Also I recommend watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEfedtQVOY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEfedtQVOY to learn how what would be data, as defined by formal grammars of some real-world protocols, can - by means of sloppy grammars and bad parser implementation - cross the threshold of Turing-completeness and become code.

by wissler 13y ago

DominikR 13y ago

A fork can be a spoon for you, if you choose to use it that way. Nobody is telling you what you are supposed to use it for, but still JSON was designed as data format. If you don't like the format or feel that JSON is too restrictive/bad feel free to extend it or create your own format from scratch.

TeMPOraL 13y ago
> still JSON was designed as data format While I don't think that comments belong in JSON, I don't agree JSON is designed as "data and not code" format. Trees of tokens are actually the natural format for writing code (also known as Abstract Syntax Trees, AST) and the data/code distinction is really, really blury when those two meet together, so it's only to be expected that people will end up coding in JSON (what are the 'build definition' files for various build tools / package managers, if not very simple programs)?

dragonwriter 13y ago

> JSON is code because I use it as code You could use JSON as code, but that's somewhat silly, because there's already a superset of JSON designed for that use.

nonchalance 13y ago
Technically not true: http://timelessrepo.com/json-isnt-a-javascript-subset http://timelessrepo.com/json-isnt-a-javascript-subset {"JSON":"ro cks!"} (there's a unicode line separator -- 2028)

IanCal 13y ago

You can use a screwdriver as a hammer all you want, it's not going to make it a good idea. This isn't a free speech issue. > Further, if JSON was really only data, then it's an incredibly stupid way to store data, given that it has a human-readable syntax that the computer can only deal with after it's been parsed. As data, it's bloated and inefficient. So use something else. Also, a computer can only read any file after it's been parsed in some way. I'm not really sure what you're suggesting as an alternative. > To the extent that JSON is a good format, it's code Is it executable? Is it turing complete?

TeMPOraL 13y ago
> Is it executable? Is it turing complete? It represents groups of more-less arbitrary tokens as trees, therefore it's a natural format for code representation as it's equivalent to an AST, therefore it's trivial to attach a basic execution context with if and lambda defined, and now it's executable and turing-complete.
- IanCal 13y ago
  So any indented text file would be considered code?

defen 13y ago

> JSON is code because I use it as code You can't use JSON to compute things, therefore it is not code (unless you are willing to concede that any document format is code).

TeMPOraL 13y ago
> unless you are willing to concede that any document format is code Because it is. Data vs. code distinction is arbitrary. The following sequence of characters: "echo 'foobar';" can be interpreted as describing a string, a series of tokens, a piece of code, a piece of music or a small icon, whatever interpretation you choose.
- defen 13y ago
  Yes, I understand that "code is data". This does not mean that data, in general, is code; unless you are willing to make the words completely meaningless. "Code" requires some notion of an execution platform/environment, which does not exist for arbitrary data. Here is a string: "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog". Or how about "\u0000\u0000". That is not code, as generally understood.
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    > "Code" requires some notion of an execution platform/environment, which does not exist for arbitrary data. Arbitrary data don't exist without some notion of an execution (or interpretation) platform. We tend to use "code" as a word for "commands telling some execution process what to do" and "data" as a word for "information that is meant to be transformed" but in reality this distinction is meaningless; both are fundamentally the same thing, and even our "code" vs. "data" words have blurry borders. It's very apparent when you start reading configuration files. For example, aren't Ant "configuration files" essentially programs[0]? We all know what we usually mean in context by saying what is "code" vs. what is "data", but one has to remember, that in fact they are the same - minding it leads to insights like metaprogramming. Forgetting about it leads to dumb languages and nasty problems, and is generally not wise. [0] - the answer is: yes, they are, see http://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/lisp.html http://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/lisp.html for more. ETA: Questions to ponder: - are regular expressions code, or data? - is source written in Prolog code, or data? Also I recommend watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEfedtQVOY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEfedtQVOY to learn how what would be data, as defined by formal grammars of some real-world protocols, can - by means of sloppy grammars and bad parser implementation - cross the threshold of Turing-completeness and become code.