I would like to thank you for your posts. You've made me take a step back and actually see that C and Unix was not as good as I thought they were. Thanks to your posts I actually tried out Common Lisp (using ecl) and actually enjoy the language quite a bit. It just really clicks with me and is nice to work in.
Once again thanks for your posting.
What are the advantages and shortcomings of JSON?
Daniel Moore
Christopher Jones
I'm talking about how much C and UNIX suck compared to other languages and operating systems. If a malloc has so many bugs that they can form their own assembly language, it sucks. Why does C suck so badly with its array pointer bullshit that you can't even add bounds checking?
Here's another example.
langsec.org
Software sucks because UNIX weenies don't care and they ignore all that stuff. A lot of security and error handling techniques were known in the 60s when Multics was created, but that didn't stop the UNIX programmers from ignoring them.
What they're doing wrong is using C. C sucking is a law of nature and the problem of C sucking is not solvable, but that doesn't mean all software has to suck forever, only C software. C sucks so badly that people completely give up on trying to make software not suck. Some languages have the opposite effect.
That's what I'm trying to accomplish. I post these quotes because most of them are still valid today. The UNIX weenie mentality hasn't changed at all. Common Lisp does a lot of things well and is a good general purpose language. An OS written in it would eliminate an enormous amount of bloat and waste that is part of every program now.
Yes, and they've succeeded. Hordes of grumpy C hackers are complaining about C++ because it's too close to the right thing. Sometimes the world can be a frightening place. I've been wondering about this. I fantasize sometimesabout building better programming environments. It seemspretty clear that to be commercially viable at this pointyou'd have to start with C or C++. A painful idea, but.What really worries me is the impression that C hackersmight actively avoid anything that would raise theirproductivity. I don't quite understand this. My best guess is thatit's sort of another manifestation of the ``simpleimplementation over all other considerations'' philosophy.Namely, u-weenies have a fixed idea about how much theyshould have to know in order to program: the amount theyknow about C and unix. Any additional power would come atthe cost of having to learn something new. And they aren'twilling to make that investment in order to get greaterproductivity later. This certainly seems to be a lot of the resistance tolisp machines. ``But it's got *all* *those* *manuals*!''Yeah, but once you know that stuff you can program ten timesas fast. (Literally, I should think. I wish people woulddo studies to quantify these things.) If you think of aprogramming system as a long-term investment, it's worthspending 30% of your time for a couple years learning newstuff if it's going to give you an n-fold speed up later.
James Smith
kill yourself rustnigger
Dominic Stewart
yes. yes.
C could be good for things like making Quake game for hundred-Mhz computers. but it's horrible for developing operating systems, where you need security and reliability.
Why did UNIX idiots choose and keep using C instead of something like Ada? Yes, UNIX is older than Ada, but they kept using C instead of switching to something better. And if OS turned out to be slow, they could rewrite *some* parts in something faster and audit that parts very much.
but unix and open source idiots cannot into DESIGN and PLANNING. that's why they will always lose. linux is a big poop where random devs shit into.
Zachary Barnes
There are none.
Grayson Hill
I think the biggest advantage of JSON is that it's human-readable. You can write a JSON file by hand in a text editor without problems, or you can take generated JSON and see what's inside.
The downside is that the JSON grammar actually has holes and it's never really clear which version of JSON one means.
seriot.ch
Being human-readable means that it's harder and slower to parse. If you don't need your data to be human-readable (e.g. when used for IPC) that's a pure downside. A good alternative would be MessagePack, it's similar to JSON, but binary, so it's smaller, simpler, and faster to parse.
msgpack.org
The idea behind MessagePack is that you have a stream of binary data, and the first byte of each datum tells you immediately how to interpret the following data. For example, when reading and array, the first byte tells you what type of array it is, and when you know that you know how many bytes to read to get the size of the array, so you can allocate the necessary amount of memory, and then you read the actual content of the array. By contrast, in JSON you would first have to iterate through the list until you reach the closing bracket and count along the way to find out how long the array is.
You could have at least picked a Scheme, but Common Lisp is a Frankenstein monster that begs to be put out of its misery. Everything about the design of the language makes me rage. There is a beatiful language hidden somewhere under all that MIT autism.
Caleb Williams
Give one fucking example of a security vulnerability embedded in JSON, or never talk to me and my board again.
Angel Davis
I wish. Fucking pajeet Java Maven sand niggers won't let it ever die. Java programmer genocide when?
Brody Mitchell
Ada is a terrible language and no-one should use it.
Bentley Butler
The problem with Maven isn't XML, and the best alternative being Gradle, you just swapping one declarative format for another (JSON).