Developing and debugging systems with JSON (vs, say, protocol buffers) is much easier… configuration is rarely interfaced with by humans vs. debug logs or dumps etc, which are always being looked at.

It's not hard to read what isn't "human readable" anyway; it just takes a little bit of practice and learning. For example, I can "sight-read" x86 and Z80 Asm from a hexdump, and bits of ASN.1 and a few other proprietary protocols too.

Did I strike a nerve? It's unfortunate that so many seem to be under the impression that "human readable" is really an euphemism for "like English" and are narrow/closed-minded enough to not consider the possibility that people can learn just about any language with enough exposure and a bit of effort.

4f 6e 63 65 20 79 6f 75 20 73 74 6f 70 20 6c 65 61 72 6e 69 6e 67 2c 20 79 6f 75 20 73 74 61 72 74 20 64 79 69 6e 67 2e

You didn’t strike a nerve, but your comment is misguided.

Of course people can read binary formats. It is just that they read them more slowly, and it requires quite a bit of exposure/practice, so that people usually invest in tooling to simplify the process.

I suggest that when you see a comment like this, you ask yourself “if I change ‘human readable’ to ‘easily human readable’ would I need to offer my correction?”

This comes across the same way as that long ago "Show HN" where somebody said that Dropbox is pretty much just rsync.

With something like protocol buffers, you have an explicit schema, parsing is well-defined, and you rarely (if ever) need to manually inspect the serialized representation.

But json is terrible for configuration, e.g. comments are absolutely required. Toml and Hocon are for configuration.

json isn't human readable, it's a serialization format that happens to use ascii.

Developers are the humans (at least for now) that interface with JSON.

And devs don't care about just config files put API requests and responses and any other kind of structured/semi-structured communication and data.