They were chucked out because, according to the guy who defined it, people started using them for parsing directives, which hurt interoperability because now you needed to be sure that the parser would both read the comments and interpret them correctly. Suddenly, those comments might make otherwise identical files parse differently. If the whole point is that it’s reliable and machine-readable, keeping it to the minimal set of features and not extending it any way whatsoever is a good way to ensure compatibility.
What you can do is define some property for comments. It’s not standardised, but you could do stuff like
{"//":"This is a common marker for comments","#":"I've never seen that as a property name, so it might be safe?","_comment":"Property names with underscore for technical fields seem common enough as well, and it's semantically explicit about its purpose"}
And also, JSON was intended as a data serialisation format, and it’s not like computers actually get value from the comments, they’re just wasted space.
People went on to use JSON for human readable configuration files, and instantly wanted to add comments, rather than reconsider their choice because the truth is that JSON isn’t a good configuration format.
Chuck in comments and I’m on board.
They were chucked out because, according to the guy who defined it, people started using them for parsing directives, which hurt interoperability because now you needed to be sure that the parser would both read the comments and interpret them correctly. Suddenly, those comments might make otherwise identical files parse differently. If the whole point is that it’s reliable and machine-readable, keeping it to the minimal set of features and not extending it any way whatsoever is a good way to ensure compatibility.
What you can do is define some property for comments. It’s not standardised, but you could do stuff like
{ "//": "This is a common marker for comments", "#": "I've never seen that as a property name, so it might be safe?", "_comment": "Property names with underscore for technical fields seem common enough as well, and it's semantically explicit about its purpose" }And also, JSON was intended as a data serialisation format, and it’s not like computers actually get value from the comments, they’re just wasted space.
People went on to use JSON for human readable configuration files, and instantly wanted to add comments, rather than reconsider their choice because the truth is that JSON isn’t a good configuration format.
If we’re adding comments to json, can we add canonical support for trailing commas?
Found the python guy!
Oh, a trailing comma? That’s a tuple.
Yeah when the call_func((a,)) is the way to go it is a newbie pain for sure. Remember banging my head on that one.
I’ve spent hours on that, and debugging missing commas between string literals. Even on separate lines you’re not safe from implicit concatenation.
Just make JSON5 the new official version and I would be ok
That seems quite good, not overdoing it too.