Crockford thought that you could avoid version impedance mismatches by not versioning things. This doesn't work! https://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/co/2012/04/mco2012040006.html …pic.twitter.com/tShrqyoR3G
-
More importantly, this isn't fixable by versioning. A new version of JSON couldn't make JS/Racket/Java have the same number system.
This works fine in protobuf, thrift, cap'n proto, flatbuffers, etc. because they're precise about their types.
-
-
BTW, many implementations disagree and do (1). Maybe that's wrong, but if so, the spec is very easy to interpret incorrectly.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The point of JSON is to map to the "native" types in each language. JSON's approach has drawbacks, but versioning is irrelevant.
-
If that's the point, the original spec is quite odd in specifying, multiple times, "very much like a C or Java". Why say that?
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.