JSON is useful partially because it’s easy to parse, so parsers already exist in every language. Extending the syntax is undoing all the communal work, and encroaching on grounds that YAML and other languages already cover.
> Extending the syntax is undoing all the communal work
JSON5 takes stuff from ES5.1 and adds it to JSON, and ES5 is backwards-compatible with older JS. This means it's fairly trivial to convert JSON5 to JSON (literally 13 lines: https://gist.github.com/iddan/3d34b12f6b22c30a8a07c149b3175e...). And ES5.1 itself was the product of communal work.
> encroaching on grounds that YAML and other languages already cover.
I don't know that we should really start dividing features into nice little boxes so no one steps on each other's toes. Trying different solutions for the same problem can eventually bring us more optimal solutions than if we just sat around twiddling our thumbs because 'it's been done'. It's not like there's an army knocking on your door going "switch to JSON5 or we'll kick your teeth in." People can stick with what they want to do on the merits, but I don't see that as a reason to shut down others' work.
Did you paste the correct link? This just plumbs together an existing JSON 5 parser with a JSON 4 serializer.
How many lines does this take without importing a library the solves this for you?
JSON.stringify is part of the standard JS spec: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
JSON5.parse() is part of JSON5's API: https://json5.org/#json5parse
So any project that includes both standard JS and JSON5 could literally copy and paste this code. You're still importing JSON5, but you would presumably have to do that anyways to use JSON5.
is not a convincing reply to
> so parsers already exist in every language
You'd have to rewrite anything using json_encode() and json_decode() in PHP, or the equivalent standard functions/methods in Python, C#, etc. And also take on another dependency. And maybe lose performance.
And then you sometimes may have to know whether you're dealing with JSON or JSON5, and what the program on the other end of the line produces or expects and can handle.
For new greenfield projects it might be worthwhile. But most of the world runs on legacy code and many prefer to stick to the standards and minimize dependencies. So it's not that simple.
That doesn't mean it's bad though. Like anything else in software, it's a trade-off.
This take is disingenuous and horribly uninformed and very shortsighted.
Not every parser out there is JavaScript eval(). Some people actually had to write and maintain a parser in whatever programming language they have to work with.
In the past I wrote a JSON parser for a low-level language, and back then I had to write the letter and parser by hand. Each change to accepted JSON values meant I had to add at least one terminal token, update the grammar to include it, and update the data model to support yet another type.
Adding comments would either require adding a terminal token to be ignored, or rewrite the data model to support positional items that cursors/iterators could or could not skip.
These are not 13LoC changes. At all.
And if I happen to be consuming an API I don't control which for God knows what reason decided to move to json5, I would either have to rush a parser to production or remain down.
> And if I happen to be consuming an API I don't control which for God knows what reason decided to move to json5
And such a decision might be the API maintainers not understanding their users.
This really does look like a case of missing a point and proceeding with a bad idea that results in an all around increase in harm, because no matter the idea, there will always be at least a few adopters and then everyone else has to deal with it.
If it's allowed for anyone to come up with any new idea they want, then it has to be equally allowed for others to criticize. Anything else is literally not sane.
It's perfectly likely the "haters" are right and the idea is bad and should not be adopted or proliferate. It's also possible they are merely unthinking haters.
But calling them "haters" is not a valid defense of the idea.
Never disputed this.
> It's no longer better ergonomics if you can't use it at all because half your endpoints don't support it
Incompatibility != lack of ergonomics. People use new and incompatible frameworks all the time. It could be argued that JSON had better ergonomics at a time when XML was more popular, in spite of impedance mismatch with other APIs. Similar could be said of what's happening with python 3 vs python 2 the last decade. How do standards improve without breaking anything?
> But calling them "haters" is not a valid defense of the idea.
From reading the article, it seems like people were particularly cruel, well beyond constructive criticism into straight up ridicule:
> But he went even further: Mitchell took the time to make a parody project of JSON5 [..] even making fun of me by name.
OP was gracious about it however:
> I reached out to Mitchell as part of writing this post [..] I assumed he regretted it in retrospect, and I harbored no grudge or ill will towards him.
> Mitchell confirmed this assumption to be true and offered a genuine, sincere apology. Thank you, Mitchell — I appreciated that a lot.
He doesn't appear to take personal affront, so I think his use of the term 'haters' is playful, but I think also fair when you consider that even those mocking them felt bad about their conduct.
You can disagree with someone without accusing them of being insincere or arguing in bad faith (which is what “disingenuous” means).
We're supposed to assume best intent.
Accusing someone of being "disingenuous", "horribly uninformed" and "short sighted" for providing an different opinion isn't doing that.
I learned something from the post. I learned that these enhancements are already mostly being codified in the language.
That influenced my opinion on the subject.
I assumed that the 13 lines of code comment was in the context of js, not (for example) a c parser, where it's pretty normal for 13 lines of js to translate to hundreds or potentially thousands of lines of C code.
The post was informative and respectful.
The name-calling response was not.
No one with the faintest understanding of what a parser is and does would ever claim that any of these changes could ever take 13loc to implement.
If they are ignorant and still feel compelled to pass false claims on how significant changes are instead trivial just to try to downplay the real world challenges, they are undoubtedly being disingenuous.
Rather than write this:
> This take is disingenuous and horribly uninformed and very shortsighted.
Write this instead: "This take is horribly uninformed and very shortsighted."
Think of this way: we're asking if you can find ways to not assume bad faith in another party.
> If they are ignorant and still feel compelled to pass false claims on how significant changes are instead trivial just to try to downplay the real world challenges, they are undoubtedly being disingenuous.
From the Apple dictionary:
>> disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does: he was being somewhat disingenuous as well as cynical.