seagreen

16 ms·

121.
by seagreen 10y ago
> not be accepted by a conforming SON parser (that did unicode normalization on incoming keys) I don't think RFC 7159 actually mentions Unicode normalization at all. If it was in there I think it would be mentioned in the section on
122.
by seagreen 10y ago
This is the second time Bencode's been mentioned in the context of Son. I didn't know about it before, it definitely looks interesting! However if you're sending data to a service that only accepts JSON then it's obvious
123.
by seagreen 10y ago
You might be interested in JSON5 ( http://json5.org/ ) which goes the opposite direction of Son and makes JSON more human-writeable. It's the best, cleanest "JSON+" I've found so far.
124.
by seagreen 10y ago
I think the way to go is definitely by code point. We don't want to pull any more of the Unicode spec into Son than we have to. Happily sorting is only used to order members within Son objects. Individual strings are never sorted, so t
125.
by seagreen 10y ago
Good catch. I kind of slacked on this since I knew it would be a solvable problem once everything else got worked out. Right now the reference implementation sorts by comparing codepoints one-on-by one. When it reaches a codepoint that&#x27
126.
by seagreen 10y ago
jq is great. You can actually see how it's used to test the reference implementation of Son here ( https://github.com/seagreen/Son/blob/master/implementation/t... ) using `jq --compact-output --s
127.
by seagreen 10y ago
Thanks for brining Canonical JSON up. There's an issue to investigate it here: https://github.com/seagreen/Son/issues/7 It doesn't appear that Canonical JSON does anything about redundant escape seq
128.
by seagreen 10y ago
> I wouldn't bother turning it into a formal specification. Too late! > But you can always put JSON through a pretty-printer which puts values into canonical form before diffing. Son is a starting point for building such a pretty
129.
by seagreen 10y ago
I wanted to name it something like "mson" for "minimal-JSON", but that's already taken. EDIT: Not meaning anything is a plus! But I see your point about being un-googleable.
130.
by seagreen 10y ago
Author here. I originally started this project because I wanted a consistent way to serialize JSON so that the serialized bytes would hash the same way every time. As I worked on it though I realized it might be of general interested to peo
131.
Son – A minimal subset of JSON for machine-to-machine communication(github.com)
47 points by seagreen 10y ago|70 comments
132.
by seagreen 10y ago
I think he's talking about how it can be hard to tell what's already been evaluated and what hasn't.
133.
by seagreen 10y ago
As a huge Haskell proponent: this is a totally legitimate question, sorry you're being downvoted. Writing extremely performant Haskell is a very specialized skill. Happily, Haskell is still extremely fast even without fine optimization
134.
by seagreen 10y ago
My understanding is that Docker only stays reproducible if after every change you kill the container and start a new one. Otherwise a particular change may only be working because of a side-effect of a change you introduced earlier and then
135.
by seagreen 10y ago
Absolutely. In fact, one of big things holding back Haskell has been the immaturity of its libraries (because for a long time they were built by hobbyist and academics, with little industry support, in a language where lots of things were n
136.
by seagreen 10y ago
Absolutely! Thanks for standing up for rigor here. (The actual argument for functional programming is its adoption by elite programmers like Standard Chartered's Strats team, Facebook's anti-spam group, and Jane Street as a whole.
137.
by seagreen 10y ago
Consider this situation: three different developers are working on the same application. They should all have the exact same dependencies installed, right? Therefore they should be working of of a freeze file of some kind. Why use an entire
138.
by seagreen 10y ago
Well, the browser already did replace Unix for most people=( Presumably we'd be trying to design something good and not awful though, so lets not stop there. But it does give us a starting point: + one click installation of application
139.
by seagreen 10y ago
It works great for me (also on Firefox).
140.
by seagreen 10y ago
Python is a nightmare for static analysis. Basing anything contract-related on it is the opposite of reassuring. I think there are some really cool ideas in Etherium. Proof-of-stake is great. Provably terminating functions are great! These
141.
by seagreen 10y ago
Nope, they're still using Solidity. http://www.stephendiehl.com/posts/smart_contracts.html : > "Solidity, while being an interesting proof of concept, is dangerously under-contained and very difficult to a
142.
by seagreen 10y ago
I actually do use markdown for the git-repo based prototype. My personal website itself actually uses that prototype. You can see an example "page" here: https://github.com/housejeffries-pages/2 Thanks for th
143.
by seagreen 10y ago
If you read down to the "Problems" section of the page, you'll see that I agree with you. I don't consider my prototype (that uses git) an acceptable solution at scale. The actual solution would need to be as easy to set
144.
by seagreen 10y ago
If anyone's interested I've got thoughts on how to improve wikis here: https://housejeffries.com/page/4 My main issue with current wikis is that if you make a contribution and it's deleted, it's gon
145.
by seagreen 10y ago
Have you read the specs for both? You should read the JSON spec. It will take you ten minutes. The YAML spec ( http://yaml.org/spec/1.2/spec.html ) may take you a little longer. . .
146.
by seagreen 10y ago
Thanks for the info. Glad this stuff is being taken seriously by the core part of the community.
147.
by seagreen 10y ago
Language choice matters. If asked to write a pacemaker in PHP I would refuse.
148.
by seagreen 10y ago
A flagship Solidity product has already been pwned for $50 million dollars, leading to a hard fork of Etherium. This is not fake " ~deep concern~ ", this is a real problem.
149.
by seagreen 10y ago
Please consider trying to get off of Solidity at some point. It doesn't matter how much auditing is done, if you're building on a shaky foundation mistakes will eventually slip through. Solidity is definitely a shaky foundation. I
150.
by seagreen 10y ago
What language are the contracts written in? Do you have a specification of that language? EDIT: Nevermind, I see in an another comment that you're using Solidity. Thanks for the answer! Now I have a new question. What do you think abou

More ›