[9fans] (no subject) - Plan9

This is a discussion on [9fans] (no subject) - Plan9 ; > no, i don't think so. they're about the same amount of code, and json is > less regular and more of a hack. as js is, though i've seen worse > (java! oh, man! what were they THINKING?) some ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: [9fans] (no subject)

  1. [9fans] (no subject)

    > no, i don't think so. they're about the same amount of code, and json is
    > less regular and more of a hack. as js is, though i've seen worse
    > (java! oh, man! what were they THINKING?)


    some sort of agreement over the structure and wide support for it
    sometimes beats having to re-invent *yet another* s-expression form
    noone seems to really want, such as the one created by rivest etc.

    oz







  2. Re: [9fans] (no subject)

    >some sort of agreement over the structure [for json] and wide support for it

    there isn't though: i had to adjust the code to account for what
    they apparently meant as opposed to what was documented, given examples
    that people produce.
    it was similar but a bit worse for ogdl.

  3. Re: [9fans] (no subject)

    sure i understand the skew between implementation vs spec; there are many
    [often embarrassing] examples of it in the protocol circles. so long as people
    are at the same table agreeing to interoperate, we can fix that. there are
    seventy different APIs in 28 different languages (not counting the unlisted
    limbo implementation) for this lightweight data interhange format. you
    are nitpicking. [and also forgetting the irregularities lispers had
    introduced into their notations, eg. power brackets, array brackets
    and the like]

    oz

    > >some sort of agreement over the structure [for json] and wide support for it

    >
    > there isn't though: i had to adjust the code to account for what
    > they apparently meant as opposed to what was documented, given examples
    > that people produce.
    > it was similar but a bit worse for ogdl.




  4. Re: [9fans] (no subject)

    Do you have code published for your implementation regarding ogdl?

    (In my implementation I support a subset of ogdl, I barely have
    grammar checking, and I'm happy with it

    Thanks,
    Lluís.

    2007/5/26, Charles Forsyth :
    > >some sort of agreement over the structure [for json] and wide support for it

    >
    > there isn't though: i had to adjust the code to account for what
    > they apparently meant as opposed to what was documented, given examples
    > that people produce.
    > it was similar but a bit worse for ogdl.
    >


+ Reply to Thread