|
Sounds like you already spent that 5 minutes trying to get NewtonSoft's lib to serialize a dictionary, which is rather my point about the learning curve.
hack everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, sure, but, I still think I've spent less time dealing with this frustration than it took to write JSON.Net which, again, is widely used so I get the benefit of tons of testing.
When I was new to dev, I mocked the idea of paying for things I knew I could write. Now I know the most important thing is giving my boss a result as quickly as possible. Would you roll your own auth or use Identity, for example?
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you in general. But in JSON's case, I've never found a good reason *not* to use what I've built, as by now it's tested, and unlike NewtonSoft it does exactly what i want how I want it.
It did take me time to get it there, so I probably wouldn't have built it professionally unless i needed like, a little REST/json-RPC layer and nothing else at which point I know from experience that deving that took less time than learning to do the same thing with NewtonSoft, whose offering is actually more complicated in that regard.
So it all depends.
hack everything.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: while XML does preserve order of sub elements.
Does it? By definition?
I am aware that a schema can specify that a sequence is to be preserved. Of course, even if you are not required to preserve the order of elements, you are allowed to do so in your processing, which is often the simpler solution. But unless explicitly declared as a sequence, I would not rely on preservation of order.
|
|
|
|
|
The order of sub elements is preserved.
Schemas can only restrict the order they may appear in. (order=any or whatever means no restriction, but it still keeps the subelements in document order)
I'm pretty darned confident of this, but do correct me if I'm wrong. The *only* exception i could think of would be something that allows reordering by schema "key" field, or perhaps "id" field but i've never seen an implementation that does this, and I think it's not cool to do.
So I'd put rent money on this assertion. I don't rent, but still.
hack everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like JSON but at the same time, you're not wrong. 
hack everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Ouch, that article is awful!
I would try to justify my claim but I just don't have enough spare time to point out all the wrongs with it. Let's just say it's very biased and the examples are not practical and have been cherry picked to fit the agenda.
For example, at one point it uses XPath to show how easy it is to get elements with a certain attribute using XML, but then suggests you need to write a multiple line for-loop to deal with the JSON equivalent...  
Personally I don't have a problem with either, pick what best suits the requirements, as is true with most things.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Ouch, that article is awful!
Maybe. I posted the link just because it mentioned C# troubles with JSON.
Quote: Personally I don't have a problem with either
Me too. Nowdays I use more JSON, because often I need the serialization of trivial objects.
|
|
|
|
|
(Yes, I see below that you are being tongue-in-cheek.)
SQL Server supports XML as a datatype, so when I'm reading JSON to store data in SQL Server I convert it to XML then store the whole elephanting thing in an XML-typed field. 
But, really, it's like saying that apples are better than oranges.
Nearly all the places I see people rationalizing that JSON is "better" than XML, it's just completely unconvincing.
I can consume either (and convert to XML as necessary) and I can produce either. No big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, the only benefit i see is that it's more concise. And doesn't have namespaces that I know of.
Yeah, instead of a JSON type there's just JSON parsing to turn it into a table, which I've done quite a bit of lately
|
|
|
|
|
well, the other benefit is native support in javascript. Just sayin
hack everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Javascript supports JSON, that's why we hack around with it in C#. it is of no intrinsic use otherwise, except perhaps for another serialisation format
|
|
|
|
|
i mean, that's what it is - a serialization format.
but textual serialization formats are useful for all kinds of things - like remote procedure calls over text based protocols.
IMO, it's not JSON's format so much that matters, but what people do with it.
The fact that it *is* native to javascript makes calling JSON services with Javascript basically built-in to existing browsers, unlike XmlHttpRequest was for so long.
But aside from that, yes, it's just another serialization format.
The structure is easy to query though, unlike XML (which can be simple, but gets complicated quickly)
hack everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Xpath was complex because it was powerful.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is. Was means 'back in the days when everyone used it a lot'. Even VB6 still exists, although it's a lot less useful than XML, which I am sure is still used.
|
|
|
|
|
I use XPath nearly every day. Very handy in a tight spot.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm sure some people still do. Nothing wrong with that, it's hardly outdated. XML is just not the fix all it was assumed to be in 2002
|
|
|
|
|
I think it got that reputation on account of being the first widely adopted extensible textual structured data format online. It was really the idea of such a format that was a fix all rather than Xml itself, if anything. just my $0.02
hack everything.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not even talking about xpath. JSONPath does the same thing, except through JSON documents.
The *only* reason JSONPath is simpler is because JSON *structure* is simpler (no attributes, no namespaces, all keys are fixed to field names instead of based on the key marker in an XSD schema)
Yes, *XML* is fundamentally more "powerful" than JSON because it can represent more data in more ways. It's more expressive.
However, it's also clunky if all you need is something basic like JSON provides.
hack everything.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't help but jump into a gabfest!
RPCs are generally for people who couldn't be bothered to write state machines. Which means that they're usually execrable. They're why a little spinning wheel appears on the screen and you can sit there and stare at it until the cows come home or it has the courtesy to time out. Utter dross.
|
|
|
|
|
there are valid reasons for json RPCs though, like querying a large database at a foreign entity.
Better to do that than to refresh the whole page
hack everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why this kind of thing can't be done asynchronously.
I see RPCs as anathema because they lead to gross inefficiencies and undesirable attributes:
- in a server, large thread pools (e.g. Thread Per User or Thread Per Request)
- the inability to handle other inputs (e.g. client cancellations--the "spinning wheel on the screen" problem)
- the inability to send parallel requests because RPCs block
- responses and timeouts arriving inside application functions instead of being routed top-down like other inputs
- in some implementations, undesirable coupling caused by explicitly naming the destination function
I've seen systems where mutexes were held during RPCs. This really does wonders for latency.
RPCs are good for prototyping but shouldn't appear in production code.
|
|
|
|
|
What you're missing is the internet. This is a client server scenario. At some point the client needs to fetch data from the server.
It has nothing to do with async and everything to do with the basic problem of communicating across a network boundary.
I feel like we're talking about two totally different things. Remote procedure calls - a way to call a method across a network boundary.
hack everything.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
