On 4/24/12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 24 Apr 2012, at 11:10, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > >>>> And yet again I point to Tirade :) >>>> >>>> http://goran.krampe.se/blog/Squeak/Tirade.rdoc >>>> http://goran.krampe.se/blog/Squeak/Tirade2.rdoc >>>> http://goran.krampe.se/blog/Squeak/Tirade3.rdoc >>>> >>>> Especially Tirade2 above shows a bit about size (4 classes, 500 loc) >>>> speed and portability. Tirade is basically a parser for Smalltalk >>>> messages that only are allowed to use literals as arguments (although >>>> arbitrarily nested literals). >>>> >>>> Which is exactly what Stef describes + a bit more. :) >>> >>> Yeah, I remember reading that a long time ago. It is indeed a cool idea, >>> Göran. Reminds me of the Erlang related UBF >>> (http://www.sics.se/~joe/ubf/site/home.html). >>> >>> I think the JSON choise is not bad: it is simple and universally >>> accepted. >> >> But you can express **EXACTLY** the same with >> #( >> >> >> ) >> >> So what is the point? >> >> Stef > > Yes, you are right, they are technically mostly equivalent. (JSON has > simpler primitive types, clear escapes, lists/arrays and maps/dictionaries). > > But the point is, there are so many formats out there, and everybody likes > to make there own. > > If you pick JSON, the discussion ends. It is an RFC standard.
+1 > If you pick something that looks suspiciously like some (for most people) > weird programming language you will get discussions, always. > > Dale said so: it is a pragmatic choice. +1 > Now, given the fact that the domain here is Smalltalk anyway, there is > something to say for using a Smalltalk based representation. > > But then you need to write a clear spec and a non-compiler based parser. > > With the JSON meta data, you could envision other non-Smalltalk tools using > it more easily. +1 > Sven > > -- > Sven Van Caekenberghe > http://stfx.eu > Smalltalk is the Red Pill > > >
