To Facebook the answer must be no

http://www.scripting.com/stories/2010/04/21/toFacebookTheAnswerMustBeN.html

by idiginous • 16 years ago

34 42 16 years ago

axod3• 16 years ago

One of the whole points about JSON is that you can write a serializer/deserializer in a few lines of code. It's a ridiculously simple, standard format.

Compare that with massive bloated complex XML parsers.

Good on them for using JSON.

abstractbill2• 16 years ago

And an even better thing is that you almost never have to - the list of languages without a free standard implementation of json is pretty uninteresting.

I like json a lot - it's a better reincarnation of s-expressions than xml was. The only thing I wish for is that it had a symbol type, so that I could use it as a syntax for programming languages as well as data ;)

natrius2• 16 years ago

"One of the whole points about JSON is that you can write a serializer/deserializer in a few lines of code."

Not without a good library for parsing. I'd be impressed by a robust JSON parser written in a few lines of code using just the standard library of any language.

snprbob86• 16 years ago

http://awwx.ws/combinator/toc

tomjen33• 16 years ago

JSON is easier to parse if you have to write your parser from scratch, but there are parsers for nearly all languages so you don't have to.

JSON on the other hand, means you have to write your own parser.

And really, why not do as twitter does and make it available in both xml and json formats?

axod3• 16 years ago

Here's for why.

http://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/videos/cK3N2DC3Fds

Look at that data and tell me it's beautiful and efficient. It's a crapfest of mammoth proportions.

Unfortunately in the case of youtube, you can ask for it in JSON, but it'll just take the crapfest of XML and convert it to an even bigger pile of rubbish:

http://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/videos/cK3N2DC3Fds?alt=js...

pchristensen• 16 years ago

Summary: Zuck is like BillG, and having Facebook be the identity provider for the web would be a bad thing.

pquerna• 16 years ago

My programming environment doesn't have a JSON serializer or deserializer

Its 2009 man, grow up Dave. XML lost.

immad2• 16 years ago

Its 2010.

ihodes• 16 years ago

It's.

axod3• 16 years ago

His years are clearly 0 based.

immad2• 16 years ago

This comment did not deserve 43 points :)

jallmann• 16 years ago

And unless I'm mistaken, he wrote the programming environment himself.

http://techcrunch.com/2005/08/21/dave-winers-creates-a-purpl...

The dude invented RSS, but still. Old dog, new trick?

kragen• 16 years ago

Dave Winer did not invent RSS.

hackernews• 16 years ago

Dave != XML; Dave == RSS

But yeah, json is becoming the syndication format.... Are there standards for json objects yet?

jjs2• 16 years ago

Dave != XML; Dave == RSS

RSS ⊂ XML

aphyr• 16 years ago

RSS and XMLRPC.

veemjeem• 16 years ago

I don't know if there should be standards for json objects. JSON always reminded me of duck-typed objects whereas XML reminded me of strongly-typed (via the DTD) objects.

defeated• 16 years ago

There's JSON Schema which is serviceable, but unfortunately lacking a bit in the tooling department: http://json-schema.org/

bkorte• 16 years ago

I realize this is Dave Winer and his place in the industry... but....

Is it just me or does this read like an old out-of-date guy that doesn't like change?

cookiecaper• 16 years ago

I syndicated his blog for the better part of a year and found most of his posts to be misguided. I think you're right that he just doesn't like it when things change.

jonknee2• 16 years ago

It must be frustrating to develop when you have to look at everything through a two decade old lens. Dave has had some brilliant ideas, but sticking with a hacked together dead environment is making him irrelevant.

abstractbill2• 16 years ago

It must be frustrating to develop when you have to look at everything through a two decade old lens.

You don't have to though. I've seen a lot of stuff reinvented already, some of it badly. That doesn't stop me from doing the pragmatic thing most of the time though.

jonknee2• 16 years ago

Have was the wrong word, but Dave is unwilling to change so it's the same end result.

iamdave• 16 years ago

I really don't want Facebook to be the identity of the Internet.

programnature• 16 years ago

I can't decide what is more comical. That he's going to write off FB and Twitter because parsing JSON is too hard. Or that he thought the Open Graph was a bad idea in 1997 and still thinks so today, and apparently is proud of it. Or that he thinks FB could buy Microsoft.

hristov• 16 years ago

"Facebook is to be the identity system for the web. A company? That just can't work. I can't believe he doesn't know that. Even Bill Gates didn't have the audacity to propose that!"

Dude, you don't remember Passport?

geuis• 16 years ago

Granted that Microsoft did come out with Passport, so Dave is wrong there. But yeah, I agree completely.

sh1mmer• 16 years ago

It's ludicrous to me that Dave on the one hand refuses to use JSON but then says the OAuth is "easy".

My personal experience is that JSON is very easy and getting OAuth signatures right is like stabbing yourself in the eyes with hot needles.

natrius2• 16 years ago

He said it's easy because he already has it implemented. No work required.

stevenp• 16 years ago

I didn't know that Dave Winer is the dad in "Shit My Dad Says"! Wow!

steve192• 16 years ago

"My programming environment doesn't have a JSON serializer or deserializer"

I did not realize that in 2010 any mainstream environments did not have a JSON library!

jjs2• 16 years ago

He must be using COBOL on Crutches.

Perceval• 16 years ago

He should upgrade: http://www.coboloncogs.org/INDEX.HTM

tomjen33• 16 years ago

Is there a JSON deserializer for C#?

I only ask because I haven't seen one, at least not one that is built in and guaranteed to work.

steve192• 16 years ago

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=json+c%23

MarkPilgrim• 16 years ago

Holy shit, Dave Winer still exists!

RyanMcGreal• 16 years ago

Someone needs to write a JSON-to-XML mapper for poor Dave so he can still read the streaming internet.

staunch• 16 years ago

I knew I'd regret clicking a scripting.com link...how this stuff gets 28 upvotes is beyond me.

loup-vaillant• 16 years ago

I hoped to see a political argument, and instead saw a technical, unimportant one.

Because I agree with the title: Facebook promoting unnecessary centralization and large scale spying, the answer must be no. We just need a decentralized replacement, so it can be no.

To Facebook the answer must be no

Related Stories