On Mar 2, 11:59 am, Terry Reedy <tjre... at udel.edu> wrote: > To me, comparing object notation with programming language is not > helpful to the OP's purpose. Yes, I agree, it was a distraction. I fell into the trap of responding to the ludicrous claim that "if X is a superset of Y, then X cannot possibly look better than Y" (a claim made by multiple people all thinking it was clever) by showing that Y has other supersets that do in fact look better than Y. In doing this, I made the mistake of choosing a superset of an analogue to Y, rather than to Y itself. When called out on it, I showed that, in fact, the actual X that IS a superset of Y can be used in a way that looks better. However, you are right that JSON is such a small subset of JS that it's really pretty ridiculous to even compare them, but that still makes the point that the original argument I was trying to refute is completely specious. In retrospect, though, I should have chosen a better way to make that point, because I let myself get caught up in making and then defending a flippant statement that I don't really care about one way or the other. > His main claim is that JSON can be usefully > extended but that YAML is too much, so that perhaps he, with help, can > find a 'sweet spot' in between. An excellent summary of my position. Thanks, Pat
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4