> Serialization is what it is, not why it is useful.
Is there a non-teleological manner in which to evaluate standards?
> The most useful aspect of JSON is undoubtedly wide support
This is a fantastic example of how widespread technology doesn't imply quality.
Don't get me wrong, I love JSON. It's a useful format with many implementations of varying quality. But it's also a major pain in the ass to deal with: encoding errors, syntax errors, no byte syntax, schemas are horribly implemented. It's used because it's popular, not because it has some particular benefit.
In fact, I'd argue JSON's largest benefit as opposed to competitive serializers has been to not give a fuck about the quality of (de)serialization. Who gives a fuck about the semantics of parsing a number when that's your problem?!?
Is there a non-teleological manner in which to evaluate standards?
> The most useful aspect of JSON is undoubtedly wide support
This is a fantastic example of how widespread technology doesn't imply quality.
Don't get me wrong, I love JSON. It's a useful format with many implementations of varying quality. But it's also a major pain in the ass to deal with: encoding errors, syntax errors, no byte syntax, schemas are horribly implemented. It's used because it's popular, not because it has some particular benefit.
In fact, I'd argue JSON's largest benefit as opposed to competitive serializers has been to not give a fuck about the quality of (de)serialization. Who gives a fuck about the semantics of parsing a number when that's your problem?!?