So if you wanted to be able to do N things (grep, word count, sort) across these M file types... you had to write N*M functions, each a bit different.
Unix simplified this to having everything as a text file (a special case of a file of bytes). This made it possible to have a set of N tools that could work on any part of the system, instead of 1/Mth of it.
The pipe operation allowed tools to be composed, you could grep, then word count, etc. This greatly increased the amount of computation that could be expressed as a task straight from the command shell, without having to write new tools.
So this redistributes the problem instead of solving it.
JSON is a file and interchange format - more technically a protocol.
It is not a data type.
> It is not a data type.
Although me, and I'm sure many others, have abused JSON and used it as a data type, I totally agree with you. However, GP was using JSON as an example of a more general idea. I needed to aggregate similar data across many different tables holding information collected from web scraping - typically one table corresponds to a particular service, and each service has it's own spider. My approach was to define a data model that contains all the information that I care about then write classes per service to convert its data to the format of the aforementioned data model. While the model can be serialized as JSON, it's composed of standard Python data types/classes and I don't constrain its design to be more amicable to serialization. Point being, while JSON is an intuitive example and can be a good go-to if your data matches it well, there's many ways to solve the N*M problem in this particular context.
An example of a narrow waist would be CSV - everything can export it, most things can import it, and you can usually fix whatever errors were introduced.
It also sucks bigtime.
You have M languages, and N computer architectures. You want a compiler from every language to every architecture, but don't want to write M*N compilers.
One solution is to make a virtual machine. Now, you write M language-to-VM compilers, and N VM-to-cpu compilers, so you only have to write M+N compilers.
The reality is of course more complicated but the idea is there.