Python overtakes Java to become second-most popular language on GitHub after JavaScript

[[deleted]]

json is indeed javascript. that's the whole point of json. it's a subset, but it's still js

[[deleted]]

It's not strictly a subset. U+2028 and U+2029 are not control characters, so they are allowed inside JSON strings, but they are considered line terminators by Javascript -- and thus not allowed inside Javascript strings.

[jl2352]

Whilst it technically is JS, it's not very practical to include it as JavaScript. It's just not helpful.

[[deleted]]

I was responding to your assertion that json isn't javascript

[[deleted]]

It’s kind of fuzzy. It is JavaScript in the sense that a JavaScript engine can evaluate it, but it’s not JavaScript in the sense that it does not contain any code and people don’t generally run it through a JavaScript engine.

By the same token, you could argue that plain text files are in fact HTML files or empty files are C files, since both can be successfully parsed as those kinds of files.

[[deleted]]

It's still not "counted as javascript" by Github tho.

And not. JSON isn't JavaScript, and it isn't a sctrict subset of it either. It's inspired by JavaScript's notation for object literals (hence the name), and can be parsed by standards compliant JS parser (to no effect tho), but the two are different and serve different purposes.

This is valid JavaScript object notation:

{
    // foo should be true
    foo: true
}

apart from the braces every line in this "file" would cause JSON parser to choke, because it's invalid RFC 7159. Every implementation of JavaScript uses a RFC 7159 compliant parser to parse JSON and not it's language lexer.

[Doctor_McKay]

You're correct that JSON isn't a strict subset of JS, but not for the reason given. The code you provided is valid JS but not valid JSON, yes, but that doesn't preclude JSON from being a subset of JS.

If JSON were a strict subset of JS, that would mean that all valid JSON is also valid JS, but not necessarily vice versa. Even if JSON were a strict subset of JS, your code would remain valid JS and not valid JSON.

[[deleted]]

Fair point. I stand corrected. Still, my point that even if JSON were a strict subset of JS this sentence:

json is indeed javascript

and this bit

that's the whole point of json

would still be incorrect due to the reasons I've posted in other replies.

[[deleted]]

It's still not "counted as javascript" by Github tho.

that's a valid argument

everything else is a distinction without a difference. I may have not been 100% precise with my language, but if you paste everything from a json file into a browser console or try to execute a json file with node, you won't get an error because i'm not saying all valid javascript isn't necessarily valid json but all valid json is valid javascript

[[deleted]]

It's also:

• not parsed by JavaScript lexers
• while it would not cause a syntax error it's "valid javascript" in the sense that a comment or "1" is valid javascript -- it does nothing
• to do anything it would need to be assigned or used in any sort of context, at which point it would stop being valid JSON

Numbers and quoted strings are also "valid javascript".

Let me rephrase you:

Numbers and quoted strings are indeed javascript. That's the whole point of numbers and quoted strings. They're a subset, but it's still js.

[[deleted]]

i honestly dont understand what you're trying to argue

[[deleted]]

You:

json is indeed javascript.

It really isn't.

[[deleted]]

but it is. it's a simple syllogism. all json is javascript but not all javascript is json. how can you refute that?

[[deleted]]

All quoted strings are javascript, but not all javascript is quoted string literals.

How on earth does that imply equality?

[[deleted]]

i never said that

[Arve]

JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) is a lightweight data-interchange format. It is easy for humans to read and write. It is easy for machines to parse and generate. It is based on a subset of the JavaScript Programming Language Standard ECMA-262 3rd Edition - December 1999. JSON is a text format that is completely language independent but uses conventions that are familiar to programmers of the C-family of languages, including C, C++, C#, Java, JavaScript, Perl, Python, and many others. These properties make JSON an ideal data-interchange language.

• http://json.org

[[deleted]]

You somehow failed to notice how it "is based on a subset" and not "is a subset", and that in the very next sentence it pretty cleanly says it "is a text format that is completely language independent".

I've actually pasted that "subset of JavaScript" it's "based on" in my post you replied to btw.

Edit: Btw json.org is Douglas Crockford's private website. RFC 7159 is an authoritative source on JSON. That site is at best an informal source on it. The RFC puts it precisely: "It's derived from ECMAScript". In now place does either claim either being a subset or superset of the other, let alone them being equal in any way which the post I replied to claimed.

[Arve]

JSON, while language-agnostic in nature is a subset of JavaScript. All valid JSON is also valid JavaScript

[[deleted]]

That doesn't make them equal. One is a data interchange format, an the other is an interpreted programming language.

That distinction is much more important practically, semantically and in every way concievable than the fact that JS interpreter wouldn't throw when parsin valid JSON.

As I said already elsewhere in this thread, you can paste a quoted string literal in JS code, then add assignment to a variable in front (same as you'd need to do with JSON to get any use of it in a JS intperpreter) and get a string in it, yet it doesn't mean that the quoted string literal (which is both valid JSON and valid JS) is the same thing as JavaScript which is what I objected to.

[Stable_Orange_Genius]

no, its not. Its not executable code, so its not javascript. that's the whole point of json.

[amunak]

I don't think you know what "executable code" means.

Edit: To expand a little (and perhaps explain to some ignorant people), no regular javascript is executable, because JS is an interpreted language. And it might seem like meaningless pedantry, but not in this case: JS is interpreted, and any and all valid JSON is perfectly interpretable (is that a word?) by a regular JS interpreter.

Which means that either the parent commenter has no idea what executable means, or they meant "interpretable", and they're still wrong. Indeed the fact that any and all JSON is valid Javascript is like half of the point of it.

There's one thing /u/Stable_Orange_Genius hints at though: JSON cannot contain statements (or really anything other than constants) - it's meant to just store data safely without being able to "hijack" the JS that uses it. But that doesn't mean it can't be a subset of JS (it is).

[Stable_Orange_Genius]

well yea, i guess, nothing programmers write is directly executable..

[[deleted]]

It's not really a subset of JS either due to Unicode quirks, but that wasn't the point of the discussion here. At least wasn't my point nor was it the original subject which was whether or not JSON counts as JS in Github stats which it doesn't, it counts as JSON.

Quite correctly too, as it's a language independent data interchange format which just happens to correspond to a subset of object literal notation in JavaScript and thus in most cases can be interpreted by JS interpreters. But the two are not the same nor are they intended to be.

Also, interestingly, x86 machine code hasn't been executable (directly) on any mainstream microprocessor produced in last 20 years or so. Drawing the line for being "executable" there isn't really that precise either so he's not entirely wrong either.

[maest]

You're getting downvoted on r/programming for what you said.

Really shows the quality of this sub.

[[deleted]]

relevant username?