Never use a dependency that you could replace with an afternoon of programming

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by majewsky on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @06:13PM (#24126641)

That's not JSON, though. It's absolutely something else. Maybe a JS snippet. Maybe YAML. Definitely not JSON, though.

(Some JSON libraries do have option flags, but usually it's about whether, during deserializing into a known type, unknown fields are an error or silently ignored. Or whether C-style comments are an error or considered as whitespace.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by JackFr on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @07:43PM (#24127233)

It may not be JSON but it’s out there in the wild. A lot.

Let’s say I’m scraping a website. I can:

1) complain to the owner that “it’s not JSON”.

2) write a parser for a syntax that has no spec, (it’s not JSON, but it sure looks an awful lot like JSON with unquoted keys.)

3) Set ALLOW_UNQUOTED_FIELD_NAMES to true in the Jackson library.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by Izkata on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @11:38PM (#24128388)

> Maybe a JS snippet.

While acceptable, also misleading: JS only does string keys, but unlike JSON it'll convert whatever it's given into strings. Not a problem most of the time, since it'll do the same conversion for both accessing and setting, but good to be aware of if you're doing something like iterating Object.keys()

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by jimmynest on Wednesday August 12, 2020 @12:14PM (#24133530)

I use https://jsonformatter.org/json-parser sometime to parse json and to validate.

[ Parent | on HN ]