|
I am not convinced you can "do more" with JSON than XML, and I've never been sure why anyone felt the need to "invent " JSON when XML already existed. Anything you can do in one you can do in the other, and while JSON may be slightly less verbose, I wouldn't say it's easier to read. Personally, though, I regard both as the spawn of the devil. Ghastly things to deal with. Give me a proper database any day.
|
|
|
|
|
I dunno - I quite like JSON as a data storage medium - not as a database, it's a text file, after all - particularly if you use Newton.JSON: you can add it to your project via the NuGet Package Manager (Tools ... NuGet Package Manager ... Package Manager Console)
PM> Install-Package Newtonsoft.Json Then it's simple: serialize or deserialize in one line of code!
string json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(myCollectionOfObjects);
List<MyClass> items = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<MyClass>>(File.ReadAllText(path));
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, well NuGet is something else I avoid like the plague! I do use Newtonsoft (and it is a Godsend, though I could wish for better documentation for dealing with complex structures), but just give me the dll's, please, not some freakin' package manager.
|
|
|
|
|
I used to think that, but I'm coming round - it means that the whole package is installed, so if there are dependant DLL's you don't have to scratch around to find them for each project.
The documentation could be loads better, yes! But that is ever the case these days. (And old days as well - remember MickeySoft MSDOS manuals with the "brick wall" learning curve?)
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't mean, that "json is better than xml" - what I wanted to say, was, "that json can do much more than a simple key/value pair" as we have seen in the example of the op.
sorry if you misunderstood that.
|
|
|
|
|
well, no - my bad - I did kind of get what you were saying - guess I was just taking the excuse to air my grievances at JSON, which I ma having to deal with right now, and loathe it!
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that "doing more" is the point, unless you're talking about BSON serialization.
A_Griffin wrote: JSON may be slightly less verbose,
That has my vote as the understatement of the year.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
A_Griffin wrote: I've never been sure why anyone felt the need to "invent " JSON when XML already existed.
Because data transfers to/from mobile devices going across mobile data plans (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.) get very expensive when using text-heavy XML. <myxmltag>My data costs a bit more than { 'myXMLTag' : 'My data' }, especially sending a big dataset.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
Damned mobiles have a lot to answer for! As developers for years we had the luxury of coding for ever larger, ever better screens, more memory, more powerful CPU’s and faster data transfer… then mobiles came along and suddenly we were back to square minus one.
And people called it progress….
|
|
|
|
|
In the immortal words of Angelo 'Snaps' Provolone, quit squawking. 
Seriously, though, the bloat in XML syntax always bothered me. I'm just surprised no one has pushed the JSON concept to replacing HTML's bloated tagging syntax.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, in most sensible countries (so excluding the USA in this regard) data transfer isn't really an issue any more, either in terms of GB or speed. I never have to give it a second thought (here in the UK).
|
|
|
|
|
Json is one of those xkcd 927[^] "yet another way to do it" standards. When you've seen a dozen such formats, you have seen them all. (And Json is numbered higher.)
The (official) reasons for making yet-another-format is usually either that some tiny little functional detail is missing or done in a way that someone dislikes, or that it is "much simpler". (I guess the "simpler" argument is the primary one for Json.) If we could spend our energy learning to master a somewhat more complex, but a lot more functionl language, rather than having to learn eight different "simplified in my way", I think it would have been much better.
Json certainly isn't worse than any of the other "simplified my way" alternatives. It is just yet another "yet another language".
(Another less official reason for making new languages, of all sorts, is obviously the power struggle: If you can sneak in your new standard/language so people start using it, then you gain power, because you control the standard: You have the right to define concepts and "correct" thought patterns when the stanard is used; you define future extensions and thereby which ideas shall have the strongst support etc. etc. You'll never hear the standard owner agree to that, but ask those who oppose to the standard!)
|
|
|
|
|
Not necessarily why you're using JSON, but I found it particularly useful with AJAX.
AJAX returns a single string via php's ECHO. Fine - but I need to return information along with the text, or perhaps multiple bits of text for multiple locations on a page.
JSON to the Rescue! I send back the data as a JSON string, parse it the other end (Client) and have all the parts neatly available for whatever I wish.
There are a lot of complicated protocols that can be (some day) replaced with this.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
It is the same usage here, but with a communication between php and python. THe python daemon polls an interface, and "jason"s the data back to the UI.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Friends,
I want to learn java Script, Please advice me which website is easy to learn java script.
|
|
|
|
|
My first recommendation would be MDN - Learning Javascript[^]. This is the de facto standard and has everything you need to know. On another level, assuming you're getting started on a new JS (JavaScript) project, I'd recommend TypeScript[^]. It's basically Javascript plus the addition of types and many other functions that are useful to development. You can also slowly adopt TS (TypeScript) while working with JS, as TS is just a superset of JS.
If you have any specific questions, I'd be willing to answer them in an appropriate forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would say to read before visiting any site Crockford's JavaScript: The Good Parts...
It is very important to understand, how easily things can go wrong with JavaScript.
I would also advise against any 'Language-to-JavaScript' as a learning platform, but first master JavaScript as-is...
If you not wish to take up a course, but work on your own, I would advise to set a goal, to define a project, you want to create at the end. That will give you the motivation and the framework, instead of circling around...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I learned HTML, CSS, PHP and JavaScript at W3Schools Online Web Tutorials[^]
Very easy bootstrap - includes ability to try examples, modify, and see the effects.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to be deploying a UDP transmit feature on one of my older projects, and I anticipate significant gnashing of teeth once the customer gets it.
On my home office network - I run all of my devices through my ATT gateway. I see all UDP packets.
If I route all of my connections to an external switch (NetGear FS105), I see all UDP packets.
If I replace the switch with a pure hub, all is well.
Go into my work lab where I am at the mercy of the corporate network - I connect all devices through another switch (little trendnet thing). Nothing.
I know the network switches are far higher end than anything I would use on the bench in testing, but I don't even know where to begin to start to understand how to make it better.
People throw phrases at me like, "is it a class C network?" or "the switch is filtering..." which I appreciate, I just don't know what to do with the information.
I guess first, where might I post this type of question on CP? More than happy to relocate this post. Second, any references, sights or suggestions where I can reduce my ignorance?
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
I have always struggled with networks too, at first I could avoid it, but in the position where I'm now it has become unavoidable. Can not say I ever found a good practical book about it, most books are way too theoretical. Maybe this oline tutorial will be of some help: DCN User Datagram Protocol[^]
|
|
|
|
|
 I'll take a look. Thank you
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
If you are packet sniffing, lower end switches will not let you sniffing across ports, they are usually isolated. Hubs will but won't duplex. More expensive switches support port mirroring. A book on Ethereal might help.
User: Technical term used by developers. See Idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
