I was just having this argument today. Lack of semantics is both simpler and a necessary part of JSON's success.
-
-
that just looks like a Ruby library doing the wrong thing. You don't need JSON or XML to find more examples of that.
-
read closer. :)
-
I read it, this is just the kind of hole that gets dug when code makes class-global decisions, as is often the case in Ruby.
-
it can be configured per instance. The person didn't want that. Configuring json per stringify is hardly simple.
-
it's not the encoding's fault that the library works this way
-
the library has to choose something and there's no good answer. No good default argues against "trivial xform to many langs"
-
sure, the real answer to that original problem is to have a library that understands the domain. No different than with XML.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Cross system number encoding issues are hard. But this wouldn't be easier in XML.
-
you just have to define precision or specify bignum. In the absence of a definition, people have to be defensive, but ad-hoc
End of conversation
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.