Surely "1337" is the same as 1337, right?
Meme transcription:
Panel 1: Bilbo Baggins ponders, “After all… why should I care about the difference between int and String?
Panel 2: Bilbo Baggins is revealed to be an API developer. He continues, “JSON is always String, anyways…”
These JSON memes got me feeing like some junior dev out there is upset because they haven't read and understood the docs.
I'll have you know all of my code is stringly typed.
All my binary code is stringy too.
CBOR for life, down with JSON.
If there are no humans in the loop, sure, like for data transfer. But for, e.g., configuration files, i'd prefer a text-based solution instead of a binary one, JSON is a nice fit.
What, no! Use TOML or something for config files.
Yaml is more human readable/editable, and it's a superset of json!
What I'd like for a configuration language is a parser that can handle in-place editing while maintaining whitespace, comments, etc. That way, automatic updates don't clobber stuff the user put there, or (alternatively) have sections of ### AUTOMATIC GENERATION DO NOT CHANGE###.
You need a parser that handles changes on its own while maintaining an internal representation. Something like XML DOM (though not necessarily that exact API). There's a handful out there, but they're not widespread, and not on every language.
Hell, no. If I wanted to save bytes, I’d use a binary format, or just fucking zip the JSON. Looking at a request-response pair and quickly understanding the transferred data is invaluable.
If you're moving away from text formats, might as well use a proper serialisation tool like protobuf...
Explicit types are just laziness, you should be catching exceptions anyways.
I do. I return an error.
It's the API's job to validate it either way. As it does that job, it may as well parse the string as an integer.
A string that represents types...
If a item can have different type, those label fields are actually quite useful. So I don't see the problem
json doesn't have ints, it has Numbers, which are ieee754 floats. if you want to precisely store the full range of a 64 bit int (anything larger than 2^53 -1) then string is indeed the correct type
json doesn’t have ints, it has Numbers, which are ieee754 floats.
No. numbers in JSON have arbitrary precision. The standard only specifies that implementations may impose restrictions on the allowed values.
This specification allows implementations to set limits on the range and precision of numbers accepted. Since software that implements IEEE 754 binary64 (double precision) numbers [IEEE754] is generally available and widely used, good interoperability can be achieved by implementations that expect no more precision or range than these provide, in the sense that implementations will approximate JSON numbers within the expected precision. A JSON number such as 1E400 or 3.141592653589793238462643383279 may indicate potential interoperability problems, since it suggests that the software that created it expects receiving software to have greater capabilities for numeric magnitude and precision than is widely available.
Let me show you what Ethan has to say about this: https://feddit.org/post/319546/174361
This is String - you’ve seen it before haven’t you, Gollum?
Protocol Buffers are hated, but they are needed.
Do you actually use them?
I'm a student so, yes and no?
I do, but I also don't think that's a silver bullet, unfortunately. There's convenience in code generation and compatibility, at least
The comment section proves that xml is far superior to json
XML is all round better than Json.
To whoever does that, I hope that there is a special place in hell where they force you to do type safe API bindings for a JSON API, and every time you use the wrong type for a value, they cave your skull in.
Sincerely, a frustrated Rust dev
"Hey, it appears to be int most of the time except that one time it has letters."
throws keyboard in trash
Rust has perfectly fine tools to deal with such issues, namely enums. Of course that cascades through every bit of related code and is a major pain.
This man has interacted with SAP.
The worst thing is: you can't even put an int in a json file. Only doubles. For most people that is fine, since a double can function as a 32 bit int. But not when you are using 64 bit identifiers or timestamps.
That’s an artifact of JavaScript, not JSON. The JSON spec states that numbers are a sequence of digits with up to one decimal point. Implementations are not obligated to decode numbers as floating point. Go will happily decode into a 64-bit int, or into an arbitrary precision number.
You HAVE to. I am a Rust dev too and I'm telling you, if you don't convert numbers to strings in json, browsers are going to overflow them and you will have incomprehensible bugs. Json can only be trusted when serde is used on both ends
This is understandable in that use case. But it's not everyday that you deal with values in the range of overflows. So I mostly assumed this is fine in that use case.
Relax, it's just JSON. If you wanted to not be stringly-typed, you'd have not used JSON.
(though to be fair, I hate it when people do bullshit types, but they got a point in that you ought to not use JSON in the first place if it matters)
As if I had a choice. Most of the time I'm only on the receiving end, not the sending end. I can't just magically use something else when that something else doesn't exist.
Heck, even when I'm on the sending end, I'd use JSON. Just not bullshit ones. It's not complicated to only have static types, or having discriminant fields
Well, apart from float numbers and booleans, all other types can only be represented by a string in JSON. Date with timezone? String. BigNumber/Decimal? String. Enum? String. Everything is a string in JSON, so why bother?
I got nothing against other types. Just numbers/misleading types.
Although, enum variants shall have a label field for identification if they aren't automatically inferable.
No problem with strings in JSON, until some smart developer you get JSONs from decides to interchangeably use String and number, and maybe a boolean (but only
false) to show that the value is not set, and of coursenullfor a missing value that was supposed to be optional all along but go figure that it was