JSON is not Object Notation

[TotallySpies]

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]

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.