Independent JSON implementations can parse and manipulate the same files, since they agree on what the basic datatypes are. S-expression implementations don't; often they don't even agree on what the quoting convention is.
>In theory maybe. In practice it's really nice that all JSON documents have the same standard handful of basic datatypes (number, string, etc.).
You missed boolean. That's it. Those are the supported types by json. But tell me more about how you can guess the type of 1515151515151 without context.
>Maybe that's the lesson bad devs take from it. Good devs take something rather different from it.
Thank you, people like you are the reason why I can quit my job and any time and find another one paying mid six figures to fix your messes.
> But tell me more about how you can guess the type of 1515151515151 without context.
In JSON if that's an expression then it's a number. You're the one advocating S-expressions, which is where you'd have to guess the type, so tell me how you'd figure the type out there. Heck, you're complaining about the fact that JSON schema is only a draft, but that's still decades ahead of the state of standardised S-expression formats.
> Thank you, people like you are the reason why I can quit my job and any time and find another one paying mid six figures to fix your messes.
