Re: [PATCH 0/2] routines to generate JSON data

[Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>]

On 3/17/2018 3:38 AM, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>>    3. Some other similar format. YAML comes to mind. Last time I looked
>>       (quite a while ago), it seemed insanely complex, but I think you
>>       could implement only a reasonable subset. OTOH, I think the tools
>>       ecosystem for parsing JSON (e.g., jq) is much better.
>>
> 
> I would personally avoid YAML. It's "easier" for humans to read/parse,
> but honestly JSON is already simple enough and anyone who writes C or
> javascript can likely parse and hand-write JSON anyways. YAML lacks
> built-in parsers for most languages, where as many scripting languages
> already have JSON parsing built in, or have more easily attainable
> libraries available. In contrast, the YAML libraries are much more
> complex and less likely to be available.
> 
> That's just my own experience at $dayjob though.

Agreed.  I just looked at the spec for it and I think it would be
harder for us to be assured we are generating valid output with
leading whitespace being significant (without a lot more inspection
of the strings being passed down to us).

Jeff