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

Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification

Expand Messages
  • rkalla123
    Message 1 of 76 , Sep 23, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Stephan, your comment sums up my feelings nicely:

      --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Stephan Beal <sgbeal@...> wrote:
      > 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.
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.