▲ | tgma 6 days ago | |||||||
Sure you can look at it[1], but you're not expected to look at Apple Photos database. The computer is. Write a correct JSON parser, compare with protobuf on various metrics, and then we can talk. [1]: although to be fair, I am older than kids whose first programming language was JavaScript, so I do not think of JSON object format with property names in quotes and integers that need to be wrapped as strings to be safe, etc., lack of comma after the last entry--to be fair this last one is a problem in writing, not reading JSON--as the most natural thing | ||||||||
▲ | wvenable 6 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
I'm also "older" but I don't think that means anything. > Sure you can look at it[1], but you're not expected to look at Apple Photos database. How else are you supposed to figure it out? If you're older then you know that you can't rely on the existence or correctness of documentation. Being able to look at JSON and understand it as a human on the wire is huge advantage. JSON being pretty simple in structure is as advantage. I don't see a problem with quoting property names! As for large integers and datetimes, yes that could be much better designed. But that's true of every protocol and file format that has any success. JSON parsers and writers are common and plentiful and are far less crazy than any complete XML parser/writer library. | ||||||||
|