News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Modern CSV version 2 is now available by agar on Tuesday August 15, 2023 @08:49PM (#37141375)
CSVi is quite clever. It immediately conjures the idea that its an editor for CSVs.

I assumed from the HN headline that Modern CSV version 2 was an iteration on some new CSV specification.

Re:Modern CSV version 2 is now available by sdenton4 on Tuesday August 15, 2023 @10:03PM (#37141924)
Spoiler: it's Parquet.
Re:Modern CSV version 2 is now available by yencabulator on Wednesday August 16, 2023 @10:34AM (#37147693)
Parquet is great but I'd argue ndjson[1] is closer to "modern" CSV. That is, people who like to describe things as "modern" and "elegant" are likely to want JSON everywhere ;-)

[1]: Newline-delimited JSON, http://ndjson.org/

Re:Modern CSV version 2 is now available by another-dave on Wednesday August 16, 2023 @03:36AM (#37143884)
It is clever but I can imagine the comments the OP would've gotten if posting "CSVi" and it didn't use vi-like keyboard shortcuts!
Re:Modern CSV version 2 is now available by jdmichal on Wednesday August 16, 2023 @06:36AM (#37145091)
CSVi is cute and clever in exactly the way you don't want to be. It loses the entire audience of people who are Excel jockeys working with CSV files and maybe frustrated with the experience. Software engineers and system admins know what vi is. The rest of the world doesn't.
Re:Modern CSV version 2 is now available by bombcar on Wednesday August 16, 2023 @10:56AM (#37148061)
The worse is the people who do know what vi is, and assume that it's a vi plugin or worse, an editor using vi bindings, and ignore it.
Re:Modern CSV version 2 is now available by avgcorrection on Wednesday August 16, 2023 @08:01AM (#37145734)
You know that was my first though as well (new CSV version), but then I thought that a new version wouldn't make sense since (1) there is already a specification (the RFC), and (2) those who don't care about the current RFC won't care about a new spec, either.

CSV is one of those things that are everywhere because it is “obvious”. Then we have to deal with 100 interpretations of “obvious” decades later, since not enough people care about standardization.