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

Re: [json] JSON is lightweight

Expand Messages
  • V. Karthik Kumar
    1. A CSV is useful for defining relational data ... but doesn t fit as a object language because it doesn t support the conceps of objects as such. But yeah,
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 18, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      1. A CSV is useful for defining relational data ... but doesn't fit as a
      object language because it doesn't support the conceps of objects as
      such. But yeah, it is an accepted lightweight notation.
      2. Binary files aren't practically useful either, unless they define
      things like endianness and encoding. Besides, they aren't easy to create
      by a user using a text editor (and hence have to be read/written
      programmatically).
      3. Compression isn't the consideration here, considering any text
      stream, while transmitting, can be compressed with a decent string
      algorithm.

      A "lightweight" text format is a good option, if it:

      1. does object marshalling
      2. is capable of representing most basic data primitives
      3. avoids data bloat
      4. avoids feature overkill (like how XML has become of now)
      5. is easy to create and view
      6. is easy to parse and use in a variety of programs (memory footprint
      is an excellent indicator, compare a JSON parser and a DOM 2 parser)

      Now whatever fits the description is viable to compete with JSON.

      Mert Sakarya wrote:
      >
      > Can we say;
      >
      > A CSV file is "lighterweight" and binary compressed file "lightestweight"?
      >
      > Mert
      >
      > To: json@yahoogroups.comFrom <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.comFrom>:
      > ask@... <mailto:ask%40develooper.comDate>: Mon, 18 Sep
      > 2006 05:00:30 -0700Subject: Re: [json] JSON is lightweight
      >
      > On Sep 18, 2006, at 4:46, Sergei Karasiov wrote:> I want to understand
      > a word "lightweight" in JSON description - in > context of data
      > interchange.>> Give me example of "huge-weight" - or so...XML.--
      > http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/ <http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/>
      >
      > __________________________________________________________
      > Use Messenger to talk to your IM friends, even those on Yahoo!
      > http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=7adb59de-a857-45ba-81cc-685ee3e858fe
      > <http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=7adb59de-a857-45ba-81cc-685ee3e858fe>
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
    • Philip Tellis
      ... yes, but csv doesn t easily allow for complex data types and compressed binary is just hard to parse. when dealing with browsers and web servers, gzip
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 18, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Sometime Today, MS cobbled together some glyphs to say:

        > A CSV file is "lighterweight" and binary compressed file "lightestweight"?

        yes, but csv doesn't easily allow for complex data types and compressed
        binary is just hard to parse. when dealing with browsers and web
        servers, gzip transfer encoded json is the lightest weight.

        --
        Two wrights don't make a rong, they make an airplane. Or bicycles.
      • Mert Sakarya
        Agreed! To: json@yahoogroups.comFrom: karthikkumar@gmail.comDate: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:36:02 +0530Subject: Re: [json] JSON is lightweight 1. A CSV is useful for
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 18, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Agreed!


          To: json@yahoogroups.comFrom: karthikkumar@...: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:36:02 +0530Subject: Re: [json] JSON is lightweight




          1. A CSV is useful for defining relational data ... but doesn't fit as a object language because it doesn't support the conceps of objects as such. But yeah, it is an accepted lightweight notation.2. Binary files aren't practically useful either, unless they define things like endianness and encoding. Besides, they aren't easy to create by a user using a text editor (and hence have to be read/written programmatically).3. Compression isn't the consideration here, considering any text stream, while transmitting, can be compressed with a decent string algorithm.A "lightweight" text format is a good option, if it:1. does object marshalling2. is capable of representing most basic data primitives3. avoids data bloat4. avoids feature overkill (like how XML has become of now)5. is easy to create and view6. is easy to parse and use in a variety of programs (memory footprint is an excellent indicator, compare a JSON parser and a DOM 2 parser)Now whatever fits the description is viable to compete with JSON.Mert Sakarya wrote:>> Can we say;>> A CSV file is "lighterweight" and binary compressed file "lightestweight"?>> Mert>> To: json@yahoogroups.comFrom <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.comFrom>: > ask@... <mailto:ask%40develooper.comDate>: Mon, 18 Sep > 2006 05:00:30 -0700Subject: Re: [json] JSON is lightweight>> On Sep 18, 2006, at 4:46, Sergei Karasiov wrote:> I want to understand > a word "lightweight" in JSON description - in > context of data > interchange.>> Give me example of "huge-weight" - or so...XML.-- > http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/ <http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/>>> __________________________________________________________> Use Messenger to talk to your IM friends, even those on Yahoo!> http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=7adb59de-a857-45ba-81cc-685ee3e858fe > <http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=7adb59de-a857-45ba-81cc-685ee3e858fe>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]>>


          _________________________________________________________________
          Express yourself with gadgets on Windows Live Spaces
          http://discoverspaces.live.com?source=hmtag1&loc=us

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.