Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification

Expand Messages
  • Stephan Beal
    On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Milo Sredkov wrote: supported by the specification, and tools try their best to deliver it ... i would
    Message 1 of 76 , Sep 22, 2011
      On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Milo Sredkov <miloslav@...> wrote:
      supported by the specification, and tools try their best to deliver it
      >
      > without any loss of precision. This approach makes most sense to me � it
      > allows JSON to be used for a large number of applications. However, it
      >
      i would argue that a large number of _types_ of applications become
      possible, but that a smaller _number_ of applications would be possible
      because the complexities involved would probably not be
      tolerable/implemented by the vast majority of the JSON libs. (Some would
      argue that's a good thing - weeding out the market.)

      While i cannot argue against anything you say about numerics - it's all
      valid, as far as i'm concerned - the most beautiful thing about JSON is it's
      brain-deaded simplicity. While it is, technically speaking, unfortunate that
      we don't have a solid rule about how long a number may be, it is also
      refereshing not to have to think too much about that type of detail in my
      client code. For the vast majority of the libs/apps i (and, i suspect, most
      people) write, numbers >2B are simply never used, which means i can live in
      peace with a signed 32-bit limitation for those cases. IMO, anyone trying to
      use JSON numbers for 17+-decimal-place precision is using the wrong tool for
      the job.

      --
      ----- stephan beal
      http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Tatu Saloranta
      ... For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a good thing. -+ Tatu +-
      Message 76 of 76 , Feb 20, 2012
        On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
        > Stephan,
        >
        > No problem; your feedback are still very applicable and much appreciated.
        >
        > The additional view-point on the signed/unsigned issue was exactly what I was hoping for. My primary goal has always been simplicity and I know at least from the Java world, going with unsigned values would have made the impl distinctly *not* simple (and an annoying API).
        >
        > So I am glad to get some validation there that I am not alienating every other language at the cost of Java.

        For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a
        good thing.

        -+ Tatu +-
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.