Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Show HN: JSON5 — modern JSON (github.com)
64 points by aseemk on May 28, 2012 | hide | past | web | favorite | 84 comments



JSON is wonderful because it is simple and unambiguous. It just works, and serialized data will always look the same.

This "JSON5" thing is an abomination. Use whatever quotes you like! More string escaping rules! Adding these things would make JSON worse, not better.

Here's another idea: why not write a tool that tidies up your hand-written JSON files? You could even re-use your "JSON5" parser to do it. That way you can be as lazy as you like when writing files, but not expect the rest of the world to learn your new dialect.


Thanks for the feedback. It certainly would be great if there existed tools to let me write and update JSON with nicer syntax like this; any ideas how that might be possible?

My motivation for this was actually hoping that this gets adopted in some environments that use JSON. Node relies on package.json files, for example, which frequently need to be hand-edited. Maintaining a sibling file in a different format feels equally wrong to me as it seems JSON5 seems to you. =)


Go and read why Crockford designed JSON like it is. E.g.: He omitted comments on purpose in order to avoid that people used them for additional directives.

Two or three "improvements" like quotes, comments don't legitimate a new standard. BTW, you could also leave out the colons.



It's not JSON, so why does it need to look like JSON? If you want a complicated human read-writable config format, it exists already: YAML.

As for your question: of course it's possible. Write a tool that translates between your preferred format and JSON. Set up your development environment to automatically convert between the two formats when editing JSON files.


> It certainly would be great if there existed tools to let me write and update JSON with nicer syntax like this

The syntax is not necessarily nicer, it has only a few changes in the lexical structure and the syntactic structure is pretty much the same. If it's a little nicer for a human writing it, it's a little hairier for a parser to parse it.

But how much you spend time writing JSON anyway? Most of the time JSON is read and written by tools. Human intervention is rare.

In addition to that, the native JSON parsers in the browsers are probably implemented in native code, and this parser of yours is written in JavaScript. So it wouldn't be a surprise if this was an order of magnitude slower than a native JSON parser.


That's npm, not node itself, that relies on package.json. When its creator chose it, he knew exactly what JSON is. He's maintained on HN and elsewhere that he made a good decision. So even if you stop calling this JSON, he's not buying it.

The package.json files, by and large, don't have a multiline string problem. For trailing and missing commas, I think you could make something that automatically fixes them, if that's the only problem, and run it before npm is run, perhaps using a shell alias.


  That's npm, not node itself, that relies on package.json.  When its creator chose it, 
  he knew exactly what JSON is.  He's maintained on HN and elsewhere that he made a good
  decision.  So even if you stop calling this JSON, he's not buying it.
Going along with this, there are other formats that lend themselves extremely nicely to being human readable/writable/parsable. I've seen YAML (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAML) used out in the wild to support these sorts of use cases, often in systems which also leverage JSON.

Edit: Not saying the author of npm is wrong for picking JSON, just that there already viable serialization alternatives expressly designed with human factors in mind.


You seem to be implying that making an effort to seek change in the format that npm uses is a bad idea. I'm not sure I understand why that is. Surely the status quo isn't always perfect?

In the software world in general, and in Node/npm land especially, code talks. I thought it'd be more productive to build and share a working ES5-style JSON parser than to simply ask Isaac if npm would support ES5-style JSON. =)

Yes, you're right about trailing commas. One motivation that such an approach couldn't address is documentation: I've frequently wanted comments in my package.json files, e.g. explaining a particular dependency version, or a script command.


  { 
    "name": "My fancy package",
    "comment": "I include both versions here for compatibility with package x",
    "scripts": ["script1.js","script2.js"],
    "comment":"to run the build script",
    "comment":"cd to the bin directory and type:",
    "comment":"node build.js",
    "build": ["bin/build.js"]
  }
or

  {
    "name": "My fancy package",
    "--": [
      "I include both versions here for compatibility with package x",
      "to run the build script",
      "cd to the bin directory and type:",
      "node build.js"
    ],
    "scripts": [
      "script1.js",
      "script2.js"
    ],
    "build": [
      "bin/build.js"
    ]
  }


Instead of using your parser in the app that consumes the file, use your app in the preprocessor and have it enmity standard JSON. (You'll have to start using a preprocessor.) Don't maintain both formats, only the original (that's how preprocessors should always be handled).

JSON's strength and it's very reason for existing is its simplicity and unambiguity.


A thousand times this! Stop attempting to fragment a working standard for no benefit!


Three things:

* Comments in JSON files are not a great idea because people might (will?) abuse them to add special instructions for their own serializers. As soon as this happens we'll have a format that is not compatible with other serializers.

* JSON today is a universal format. So, what are special characters? Should '1hello' be quoted? If no, then its not a subset of JavaScript anymore. If you're writing a new specification you have to define all those things. Same with multiline strings: space after backslash?

* Why? I know that hand-writing JSON can be annoying but is this really the biggest problem we have?


Comments: yes, I read Douglas Crockford's post on the matter. I guess I'm not genuinely worried about that, though, and my hope is that shipping a JS parser that works on both the client and the server will help standardize implementations from the start.

Special characters: sorry I didn't write a formal spec =), but the intent is to be a pure subset of ES5 just like regular JSON is a pure subset of ES3. Unquoted object keys in ES5 can contain only letters/numbers/_/$, and only begin with letters/_/$. So yes, '1hello' would need to be quoted, just like regular ES5.

I'm not sure how to respond to your why other than what I've already written. I never claimed this was the biggest problem we have. =)


JSON is not exactly tied to javascript. For example the number-type is not specified in much detail. You could imagine this to be a 64bit int but if you load it into javascript it will be converted to a double and you will loose precision if your number is big.


Crock made a post about JSON comments?

Anyway, I wouldn't focus on JavaScript engines because JSON is now a universal format so for languages other than JavaScript you will have to define a formal specification.


I won't begrudge someone a fun little personal project, however (almost) no-one will ever adopt this. It removes too many benefits of JSON/introduces drawbacks for very little pay off.

Yes, JSON is a pain to edit/write by hand at times, but that's an editing problem and therefore should be solved in the editor. In any halfway decent editor it should be trivial to extend it with helpers for editing JSON. Perhaps have it convert .json files to YAML(etc) on opening, and back to .json on save etc.

This is a problem that plagues many technical people (present company included). You had a good instinct, but then took a left turn somewhere. "JSON is hard to hand edit...let's undo all the speed/compatibility progress we've made with JSON in the last ~8 years and introduce flaws in the protocol with a new non-standardized format...all so it's superficially easier to edit by hand."


I'd love to understand what benefits this removes and what drawbacks this introduces, aside from the chicken-and-egg problem of having any new format. Apologies if I've missed that in the discussion so far.

You're definitely right that some of the hand-editing problems could in theory be solved by tools, but it unfortunately doesn't address documentation/comments.

I've heard the chorus on YAML though, and I'll definitely be looking into it. Thanks for the feedback!


JSON is supported natively (i.e. fast and correctly) in all modern JS environments. Yes, at one point we used Crock's parser but that's the past. Likewise, it currently is only used as a stop-gap measure to begrudgingly support older browsers.

If we're going to undo years of progress we should do it for a very good reason.

JSON has wide support in many languages. Some of them have fast low level parsers. All that work has to be duplicated. Again, this just doesn't seem sufficient reason.

Right now if I want to throw together a Python script to crawl a bunch of NPM packages and read their package.json (let's say to put together a chart or collect statistics), I can easily.

If NPM switches to JSON5, we lose compatibility without a lot of duplicated effort. Again, there's just not enough benefits.

I consider comments a flaw, because they add little benefit. JSON is a data serialization/interchange format and there shouldn't be much need to comment on it, it should be largely self explanatory. If you really need to tag things with info, you can in JSON. Adding comments is to tempting for people to abuse.

However, if you really need lots of comments, there are many existing formats which might be better suited for your task. JSON is ultimately for machines. It has a benefit that humans can read/edit it easily...but if you have data that is intended more for humans and needs lots of meta information like a complicated config file, you should either create a front end for it or use a format better suited to that purpose.

When you consider that writing a plugin for your editor, or just a stand-alone translator would solve all of the problems this does, there's no reason to put up with all the drawbacks.

What it comes down to IMHO, is this isn't suitable to replace JSON and for other uses there are already existing formats that are better.


You didn't answer his question, except in regard to comments. Everything else you said is based simply on the non-standard nature of this dialect.


That's the issue though. It doesn't introduce anything useful in terms of replacing JSON (it can even make things worse), and for other uses better solutions already exist.

The fact that in theory if it was magically supported everywhere, it might be serviceable is neither her nor there. It's not useful information. It's not gonna happen because there's no reason to switch from JSON to this, and many reasons not to. Likewise, for other applications there are better solutions.

People started using JSON even though at that point it wasn't standard because it had real benefits over what they were currently using. There isn't any situation where using this would provide a real benefit except to satisfy personal whims, and it would have the drawbacks listed.


(young) people seem to always want to find ways to skirt the "rules" that Crockford sets up (see also, jslint). Just stop. The rules he lays out are there to make your _long term_ programing life easier. Yes you may have to remember to use semicolons and quote things, but when you have to live with an application you've been working on for years, hopefully you'll learn to appreciate the fact that putting in a little extra time now saves you tons of headaches down the road.


I'm actually a big fan of Douglas Crockford. And don't worry, my code uses semicolons. ;)

I'm not sure why you lump quoting keys with semicolons, though; his regular JS style guide doesn't discourage quoting object key (neither does JSLint).


there's a reason he requires it for JSON. it's that javascript has problems when you use a javascript reserved word as a key- for instance, if you were making an RPC api, and you had a json object {do:"methodname"} the javascript eval method would throw a fit. So rather than include the full list of javascript reserved words in a spec intended to be language agnostic, he just made quoting the key a requirement, which makes things vastly simpler.


This was indeed a problem in the IE6 days. Every browser today (and ES5) supports reserved keywords as unquoted object keys. There are thus no reserved keywords for object keys in ES5, and by extension, JSON5.


No, but there ARE a ton of JSON parsers that expect and require quoted keys now. So it is, in fact, still a requirement. And I don't know about you, you may be lucky, but I still have to make my stuff work on IE6.


It's too bad, though, because all the extra quotes bloat what is otherwise a nice, spare format.


It has exactly the opposite effect on the notation's grammar.


When was Crockford elected to set the rules for programmers and why wasn't I given a vote?

Oh, he was never elected? Why the fuck should I care about what one man thinks then?


You should try relaxing a bit more, this seems like an incredibly silly thing to get worked up about. There are plenty of legitimate things in the world to get angry about - object serialisers are not one of them.

IMHO, aggressive comments that contain nothing but sarcasm are not welcome here. Let's try and keep the place a bit friendly (or at least grown-up and professional), even if we disagree. If you are going to be sarcastic, at least have the decency to make an interesting point at the same time.

> When was Crockford elected to set the rules for programmers and why wasn't I given a vote?

Crockford was obviously not "elected" in any official sense. However, he produced something that the programming language needed, and it very quickly became a standard. Have you ever used JSON in a project? Then you implicitly voted for JSON and, by extension, Crockford.

> Oh, he was never elected? Why the fuck should I care about what one man thinks then?

Because the rest of the industry has decided that JSON's benefits outweigh its downsides, and using it is a net positive. JSON is not perfect, but it solves an annoying problem rather elegantly.


Well if you use JSON, you did vote, because he created the spec.

If you've never read his book or watched any of his talks, maybe you should check them out. He never says "this is how you have to do it". He says something to the effect of 1) JavaScript is a flawed language. 2) DC has used/helped develop it for a long time 3) he has figured out a lot of least bad solutions and habits to try and for to mitigate common problems. If you don't want to follow his suggestions fine, but don't be surprised when you run into the problems that he created them to help you avoid.


Please, don't call it JSON. There is only one JSON, and you didn't make it. It's cool that you made this, and that you made it open source, just please call it something else.


While we're at it, I felt it necessary to launch HTML7: https://github.com/mitchellh/html7


Haha, I actually found that hilarious. Nice work.


The license was a nice touch.


Can I ask why YAML wasn't good enough?


My thoughts exactly. YAML is a superset of JSON that already has all this stuff and more.


I actually had no idea that YAML is a superset of JSON. Thanks! I'll look into it.


For the same reason sexps weren't good enough, apparently.


Partly because JSON has the lovely feature of being able to just eval() it into an object in browsers.


That's not really a lovely feature in this day and age. If anything it's an unfortunate artifact, as the right way to deserialize JSON is JSON.parse().


That's not the right way to parse JSON, it's really insecure


And slow, JSON.parse is magnitudes faster than using user-javascript to parse it yourself.


Author here.

This idea stemmed from long-running frustration every time I hand-wrote JSON (particularly common for Node/npm packages and test cases). After stewing on it for over a year, I bit the bullet today and made it a reality.

Feedback greatly welcome!


Douglas built the JSON spec

1) to be language agnostic. Following ES5's syntax directions is fine for ES5 focused development, possibly not for others.

2) to be final - i.e. there is no version number. If you want to extend or build something else, I am fairly certain Douglas would prefer that you call it something else. See http://inkdroid.org/journal/2012/04/30/lessons-of-json/ at 5:30 in the video.

Don't take these points as criticisms, I too would like to be able to use single quotes and trailing commas and everything else here. I think though that in order to work with JSON as a static spec, an alternative approach could be to have your project be a layer like HAML, SASS or CoffeeScript. Each of those tools compiles or transforms to conforming input for their target specs rather than replacing them.


JSON5 is also meant to be language-agnostic. It derives its syntax from ES5 in the same way that JSON derived its syntax from ES3.

I'm aware that JSON is final — it's my hope that a new format that's easier to write (whether this or something else) picks up steam — but thanks for the feedback on the name! I consciously used a different file extension (.json5) to avoid conflicts; hopefully that's a good start.

I already use (and love) CoffeeScript, but my motivation for building this was to have tools use it natively, so that sibling files in a different format wouldn't have to be maintained alongside the needed JSON.


Please don't call it JSON. Actually I don't care much, as your project will be shunned. The first rule of JSON is that JSON doesn't change.


Why are you hand writing JSON? Pass a JavaScript object, which doesn't have these limitations, to the JSON serialerizer.

The support for evaling in the various engines doesn't matter because you should not be evaling JSON strings for security purposes.

The serialization format is strict for a reason: look at where less strict HTML parsing has gotten us.


Writing, or at least editing, JSON by hand seems unavoidable if you develop on Node, as modules' "manifests" are JSON files.

I also love to make tests data-driven where possible. JSON is the natural format for data on Node, and again, test cases are usually written by hand (before code exists to generate or validate them).

I'm not sure I understand your point about eval'ing. This parser doesn't use eval(), and it works in every modern browser.

Finally, I'm not advocating for arbitrary looseness. These additions conform directly to ES5's additions.


I believe you should do something like this:

  json.stringify({unquoted:'Some value', trailing_comma:true,})
instead of hand-writting JSON data in tests.


I have implemented a javascript eval into my text editor. When I select text, and call the command, it passes it off to a node.JS engine and replaces the selection with the return result. In this way I can write a JSON.stringify([anyvalid javascript],null, [indentation]); and instantly get perfect JSON. This is much less troublesome than trying to make a new slightly incompatible format.


I absolutely hate hand-writing JSON, but that's why I use YAML. I think you should push for a properly documented subset of YAML, or a full YAML parser in JavaScript instead. Just a Ruby programmer's 2 Eurocent :)


Thanks for the feedback! I never considered YAML precisely because there doesn't seem to be much support for it. I'll definitely look into it. =)


Horrible. There's a reason JSON is homoiconic with valid javascript. You should never have done this.


JSON is an amazing serialization format but hand-written JSON is completely wrong.

I think this fixes most of the problems of using it in hand-written situations. Just the lack of comments in JSON makes it inappropriate for configuration files and tests.

But this shouldn't be called JSON. JSON is strict and doesn't include comments because it's designed for interoperability between different systems. Just because it's been abused to be used for configuration files doesn't mean it needs fixing. One just needs to use the right tool for the job. Your project might be the right tool but then it's not JSON.


* Objects and arrays can have trailing commas.*

If I had a penny for every time a trailing comma in a json config file bit me, I would have...many pennies!

I am indifferent about single vs double quotes. The backslash newline escape seems 'messy'.

Not a fan of keys not being quoted. That stikes me as wrongish for some reason that I can't put my finger on.


I think that it's really a shame to see people slamming aseemk here. He had an idea, worked on it, and released it. That's fantastic. There are a few constructive comments here explaining why his idea might not actually be that great, but there are also quite few comments that seem out of place for HN.


This reminds me of I guy I met who was trying to build a clone of Twitter, but with messages of unlimited length. In his view this made it objectively "better". He understood the what of the software, but not the why.

If you really want ES5 for writing package.json files, then you could save the time and effort by just using ES5:

    var _ = 

    { 
      some: 'object literal',
      // a comment
      num: 3,
    }
   
    fs.writeFileSync(path.basename(__filename, '.js') + '.json', JSON.stringify(_))


JSON is great because it is simple basic cs types (string, numeric, boolean, object, list, date), a perfect middle ground between messaging and readability without going all XML/SOAP. And the unchanging simplicity is that way because it is so broadly accepted from Javascript to web services and beyond. It fits nicely into the system because of it's limitations but that also gives it standardized power.

Any changes to JSON should be fought til death. Use YAML or make a new format if you need more.


Certainly. I'm not advocating for a change to JSON -- this is explicitly a new format. (The test cases use a .json5 extension to illustrate this.)

FWIW, I'm not adding any new data types or functionality, just making the syntax more human-friendly. It also continues to be a strict subset of ECMAScript, but v5 now.


Yes I was just talking in a general sense that JSON should not go all XML and mutate. In some cases I have added layers like this for instance in a C++ parser for game engines it allowed comments in the json but were stripped out at runtime on load and on send/receive from the services. But conforming to JSON that current browsers, libraries etc can use.

I see where you were going with it, ES5 support as a baseline is nice, also comments are nice but also bulky to a streamlined messaging format in most cases (config is usually yaml or some other format for this reason maybe).

I guess the naming is what maybe might cause some confusion and a good engineer makes things more simple not more complex, the simplicity of JSON is hard to achieve with such success but it is also its killer feature so that should be recognized. As long as we don't have to support 50 different 'modern JSON' formats then we are good. There are some good ones like BSON for binary JSON. I guess JSON5 works for your ES5 support.

I think here you have good reasons for your work but it goes back to the age old be 'conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept'. That standards agreement makes everything work and to me being an engineer is taking complexity and simplifying always, bloat is bad. Here it isn't that but XML started out simple as well and became a verbose, bloated hell so people get touchy with JSON hehe.


The name is definitely confusing though. You're creating a new format that existing JSON parsers cannot handle. In a way, it's like creating a new XML format called XML2 that uses parenthesis instead of angle brackets, and standard parsers like libxml will no longer be able to read.

Future newbie developers will wonder why their xml reader has problems reading document.xml2 without actually realizing the format is different from xml.

It's worse in your case since JSON5 almost looks like regular JSON, but if one were to use one of your special features, it would cause any normal JSON parser to break. The newbie developer might not be sharp enough to realize he needs a completely different parser.


JSON does not define a date type.


Ooops, I might have obsolete information. The grammar on json.org does not define a date type, but ES5 seems to define a Data.prototype.toJSON function. Oh well.


I have to agree with most of the criticism in this thread. The lack of comments, strict quoting, no trailing slashes - these aren't problems to fix they are features.

As others have noted this is not JSON and is not necessarily an improvement to JSON - so calling it JSON5 is presumptuous.

Embrace the criticism. Instead of JSON5 call it NotJSON - a standard that breaks the JSON rules for a few narrow use cases - namely when you want a hand-written, commented JSON-like syntax.


I don't think any of these suggestions make JSON easier to read, generate, or consume. What problem are you setting out to solve?

Opening paragraph: "JSON is strict. Keys need to be quoted; strings can only be double-quoted; objects and arrays can't have trailing commas; and comments aren't allowed."

If this represents a comprehensive list of the problems JSON5 solves I think you'll have a hard time rallying people around your cause.


Yes, I realize I didn't explain it as well in the README as I had in conversations and emails.

I find JSON tedious and error-prone to generate by hand. I also frequently wish I could document the data with comments.

Others have written about these same ideas, e.g. [1]; after feeling the frustration for over a year, I decided it might be productive to actually build a JS parser to get the conversation started.

My main use cases are Node/npm package.json files, and test case data.

[1] http://bolinfest.com/essays/json.html


> I find JSON tedious and error-prone to generate by hand. I also frequently wish I could document the data with comments.

I whole-heartedly agree with you on the tediousness, but JSON has this dubious double-nature that it is sometimes written by hand but mostly used as a protocol. As a protocol we want (and I would even argue need) this strictness since it makes day-to-day operations easier and parsers generally more reliable (how many times have we seen someone implement their own JSON parser? Now, what about XML? The first is a nice evening the latter is, well, not...).

As for package.json, I would argue the problem is their choice of serialisation rather than with JSON itself. Right tool for the wrong job. YAML would probably be a better pick.


> I find JSON tedious and error-prone to generate by hand.

Why do you need to generate it by hand? Create object structures in whatever language you are working in and then simply serialize them to JSON.


Seems like you're getting a lot of criticism for this, a lot of which I have to agree with. Writing valid JSON is extremely simple and unfortunately it's hard to see how this project would do anything besides promote bad practices for a near-universal format.

Suggestion: turn these criticisms to your favor. Make this into something that promotes good form. Perhaps by acting as a compiler that transforms your forgiving JSON into valid JSON. Make a command line utility. Emphasize how the output passes JSONlint or something. In other words, I'm suggesting that you remake this into a sort of coffeescript for JSON.

In any case, the path you are on isn't gonna garner much support. Change up your stride a bit and you could be on to something rather nice, though.


You know that something has gone very deeply wrong somewhere when people oppose your project because they are ideologically opposed to comments. In my own experience, finding out that many JSON parsers reject comments was a real WTF moment, and a deal breaker for my config-file application, so I ended up using JSON-plus-comments for it instead of JSON. At the same time, lack of support for trailing commas and unquoted member names have been a minor but persistent thorn in my side for no good reason.

The justification for not having comments in JSON is that in the great disaster that was XML, some projects would parse the comments and take them as semantically significant. However, the real problem there was that parser libraries would expose the comments, and that some generators would put important information only in comments. But I think that these mistakes are unlikely to be repeated, and that the proposed alternative - moving all comments into the markup, or eliminating them entirely - is just obviously worse.

One of the things that ruined the XML ecosystem was a persistent belief that XML was to be read and written by machines, combined with a reality in which it was mostly used for human-written config files, leading to a tolerance for awful syntax (like prefixing every single attribute with a namespace, and the ridiculous CDATA notation). I'm seeing the same thing with JSON: A significant fraction of its use is for human-written and human-read config files (which often desperately need comments) and people are pretending it's strictly a data interchange format that shouldn't be used for that.

It is sometimes said that JSON was discovered, rather than invented - that the syntax was already out there. So it is with JSON5: There is nothing new in this, it is simply return to JavaScript Object Notation and bringing in the rest of what Javascript has.

So, all you pooh-poohing ideologists: please seriously rethink whether disallowing comments, trailing commas, and quoteless member names is actually a good idea. Consider this in light of the fact that JSON is widely used, today, as a config-file language, and that {"--":"This is a comment"} is ridiculous enough that no one does it in practice, can't be inserted on any line, and invites consumers of your data to parse the comments.


Thanks for stating so eloquently what I've been struggling to communicate. The heart of the matter to me really does boil down to the fact that JSON is meant for humans, too, not just machines. You nailed this sentiment.

(As a friend pointed out, "Do you not comment your code just because it's meant for machines?")



I believe Facebook recently switched to JSON 3 for their JS SDK.


This entirely misses the point of JSON. if you want these features it's perfectly acceptable to use YAML instead of JSON.


Congratulations, you've made something which looks superficially like JSON, but most documents won't parse in 99.9% of JSON parsers. Interoperability is lost, nothing is gained!


If only it were this easy to extended JavaScript with a new serialization format! If the serialized text can't be assigned to a JavaScript variable, it's not JavaScript notion.

I also tried something similar a few years back when I was sick of dealing with XML and coming to terms with the required quotes.

http://xjson.org/

While it's certainly prettier to have native literals and optional quotes, it's simply not worth giving up the interoperability with JavaScript.


Please rename your project or take it down.

People here gave you enough reasons.


don't worry, next week I'll release JSON6 and nobody will remember JSON5 anymore.


I don't think making JSON more human-writable and readable is a goal worth pursuing.

JSON has its flaws, but is a surprisingly robust and elegant solution to many data interchange problems. But it is not (and I don't think it was ever intended to be) a language for human-edited configuration and data.


> [IDEA: Allow octal and hexadecimal numbers.]

Who actually uses octal, except by accident?


The only time I ever use it is with `chmod`.


I can't believe people are taking this seriously...

Lets write a python parser who accepts semicolons instead of indentation, just to fix when I forget that i am not writing Javascript; oh, and and make it accept the "function" keyword instead of def.


Seems like quoted keys are a pain in the ass. That's the only useful change I see here.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: