Discussion on project-arduino-as-a-service

[Isaac]

I'm discovering that JSON _is_ as simple as I'd first suspected.
However, I can't agree with the argument that it's easier to read.
More compact? Probably, but easier to read? No way.

However, the fact that XPath is not required on the client in order to
access properties is very attractive. JSON will deserialize into good
'ol objects easily consumed and manipulated by any modern browser
supporting ECMAScript.

[Simon Drabble]

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Isaac <isaac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm discovering that JSON _is_ as simple as I'd first suspected.
> However, I can't agree with the argument that it's easier to read.
> More compact? Probably, but easier to read? No way.
>

Compared to what? Shurely not XML!!

One of the things that brings joy about JSON is that is looks like
other programming languages, so if you're familiar with those you're
good to go. I've yet to find a programming language (HTML/ SGML are of
course excluded by "programming") that uses tags to delineate
execution points :)

-- Simon

[Isaac]

Yes, to XML. This is arguable to no foreseeable end when you consider
that I've been working with XML technologies for almost a decade. The
readability is not due to any shortcoming in JSON, but influenced by
my comfort level and confidence with XML. In fact my company replaces
code entirely with declarative statements serialized into schema-bound
XML documents - and we use specific namespaces (and sometimes even PI)
as points of execution.

In the end, readability is a subjective human quality. I'm still
working with JSON, so give it time :)

- Isaac

On May 27, 6:41 pm, Simon Drabble <simon.drab...@gmail.com> wrote: