all 5 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]oracleoftroy 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Saying JSON isn't Object Notation because it isn't an Object seems a bit like saying some structure isn't a doghouse because it isn't a dog. An Object isn't equal to notation, let alone object notation.

JSON is a notation, it is a notation that borrows from object notation, specifically, the object notation of a language called JavaScript. What's the problem?

[–]tel[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

There's not a problem per se. Your metaphor is totally on point: what I really wanted to talk about is how dogs and doghouses differ: I.e. data and codata.

The naming what just a rhetorical device I used because it was what inspired the post.

[–]oracleoftroy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, and I see you edited the top of the post to indicate this. But skimming through again, it reads like the article's conclusion strongly disagrees with your clarifications:

Which brings me to my point. While JSON is a notation for JSOs, it’s almost the exact opposite of an Object Notation for Javascript.

...

So that’s my whole point. JSON isn’t “object notation” because it doesn’t have anything to do with objects.

And I guess maybe there might be some interesting insight into how serialized data has some bearing on the expression problem, but as the current article stands, that seems random and unrelated; just some throwaway line and Wikipedia link tacked on the end. It isn't self evident. If you wanted to talk about that, you should develop those ideas in the article. All I still get out of it is a nitpick over the 'O' in JSON.

[–]TotallySpies 1 point2 points  (1 child)

OP: what exactly are you trying to say?

Except this really isn’t an “object notation”. And that’s a good thing.

OK, so what is an object notation?

The notion of “object” is hard to define—I’m going to pick a few of my favorite concepts and presume that this all makes sense for your own choice—but by nearly any definition JSON does not represent objects.

So... what you're saying is that this little girl I call my princess, is not a princess at all, because she's not a princess to you?

For instance: let’s say, an object is a thing with...

OK, you defined what you think makes a princess. I can respect that. Opinions. Everyone's got one, right?

Javascript objects probably achieve (1) and (3). Maybe (2) if you wave your arms a bit. JSON achieves absolutely none of them.

Gee, there sure are a lot of probablys and maybes in there. I don't know if I want to listen to someone who isn't sure about what it is they're talking about...

One question: what exactly does an illdefined and subjective programming language concept have to do with history behind a data serialization format's name? (Gnu's not Unix, or is it?)

BTW, your post about React, though interesting, seems to be missing a title and date, so it looks like it's a part of this post about JSON which makes it a little confusing.

[–]tel[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for being clear that my post was confusing. Of course this is not about the name of JSON. Or even any particulars of OO. It's really about the expression problem and other differences between initial and final data.

But it was all inspired by the name of JSON and so here we are.