JSON as configuration files: please don’t (2016)

Re:JSON as configuration files: please don’t (2016) by darkpuma on Saturday April 13, 2019 @01:29PM (#19654438)

> "- xml contain comments, sooner or later someone will try to add data to comments, but you already have the thing for data, the format itself, adding data to comments is stupid"

That's easily the worst argument against comments I've ever heard! Would you argue against comments in code because some jackass could abuse it to insert custom compiler directives or something? Ridiculous. The good comments do easily outweighs any harm some moron is going to do to himself by parsing comments for data.

I don't like XML any more than the rest of you, but praising json for not having comments just smacks of sour grapes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:JSON as configuration files: please don’t (2016) by ChrisSD on Saturday April 13, 2019 @03:13PM (#19655130)

The intentional lack of comments cements json's position as a (human readable) data interchange format. It's not designed to be anything else. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with a file format being focused on one goal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:JSON as configuration files: please don’t (2016) by TeMPOraL on Saturday April 13, 2019 @03:58PM (#19655381)

Indeed.

And the point of the article is that JSON is fine for data, but configs are not data. Configs are code.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:JSON as configuration files: please don’t (2016) by saagarjha on Saturday April 13, 2019 @03:57PM (#19655375)

Lack of comments just makes it a data interchange format. It’s comments which make things human readable.

[ Parent | on HN ]