There's an older pure Python version but it's no longer maintained - the author of that recently replaced it with a Python library wrapping the C# code.
This looks to me like the perfect opportunity for a language-independent conformance suite - a set of tests defined as data files that can be shared across multiple implementations.
This would not only guarantee that the existing C# and TypeScript implementations behaved exactly the same way, but would also make it much easier to build and then maintain more implementations across other languages.
That new Python library is https://pypi.org/project/fractured-json/ but it's a wrapper around the C# library and says "You must install a valid .NET runtime" - that makes it mostly a non-starter as a dependency for other Python projects because it breaks the ability to "pip install" them without a significant extra step.
And OK it's not equivalent to a formal proof, but passing 1,000+ tests that cover every aspect of the specification is pretty close from a practical perspective, especially for a visual formatting tool.
Well yeah, but then any discrepancies that are found can be discussed (to decide which of the behaviors is the expected one) and then added as a test for all existing and future implementations.
I tokenized these and they seem to use around 20% less tokens than the original JSONs. Which makes me think a schema like this might optimize latency and costs in constrained LLM decoding.
I know that LLMs are very familiar with JSON, and choosing uncommon schemas just to reduce tokens hurts semantic performance. But a schema that is sufficiently JSON-like probably won't disrupt model path/patterns that much and prevent unintended bias.
These JSON files are actually readable, congrats.
I’m wondering whether this could be handled via an additional attached file instead. For example, I could have mycomplexdata.json and an accompanying mycomplexdata.jsonfranc. When the file is opened in the IDE, the IDE would merge the two automatically.
That way, the original JSON file stays clean and isn’t polluted with extra data.
Works right up until you get an entity where the field `comments` is suddenly relevant and then you need to go change everything everywhere. Much better to use the right tool for the job, if you want JSONC, be explicit and use JSONC.
Surely it could be suffixed or keyed with a less likely collision target than this very simplistic example. I suppose JSONC and similar exist, although they are rarely used in the wild in contrast to actual JSON usage, compatibility is important.
Personally, I think if your JSON needs comments then it's probably for config or something the user is expected to edit themselves, and at that point you have better options than plain JSON and adding commentary to the actual payload.
If it's purely for machine consumption then I suspect you might be describing a schema and there are also tools for that.
This is interesting.
I’d very much like to see a code formatter do that kind of thing; currently formatters are pretty much inflexible, which makes getting structure out of a formatted code sometimes hard.
I just built a C++ formatter that does this (owned by my employee, unfortunately). There's really only two formatting objects: tab-aligned tables, and single line rows. Both objects also support a right-floating column/tab aligned "//" comment.
Both objects desugar to a sequence of segments (lines).
The result is that you can freely mix expression/assignment blocks & statements. Things like switch-case blocks & macro tables are suddenly trivial to format in 2d.
Because comments are handled as right floating, all comments nicely align.
I vibe coded the base layer in an hour. I'm using with autogenerated code, so output is manually coded based on my input. The tricky bit would be "discovering" tables & block. I'd jus use a combo of an LSP and direct observation of sequential statements.
Right. In my previous work, I wrote a custom XML formatter for making it look table-like which was our use case. Of course, an ideal solution would have been to move away from XML, but can't run away from legacy.
This is pretty cool, but I hope it isn't used for human-readable config files. TOML/YAML are better options for that. Git diff also can be tricky with realignment, etc.
I can see potential usefulness of this is in debug mode APIs, where somehow comments are sent as well and are rendered nicely. Especially useful in game dev jsons.
Yeah, but it's a fun slogan. My real peeve is constantly getting the spaces wrong and no tooling to compensete for its warts. If there were linters and test frameworks and unit tests etc for yaml, I'd just sigh and move on. But current situation is, for instance in ADO Yaml: "So it's time to cut a release and time is short - we have a surprise for you! This will make some condition go true which triggers something not tested up till now, you will now randomly commit shit on the release branch until it builds again."
Stuff that would have been structurally impossible in XML will happen in yaml. And I don't even like XML.
Because there's a metric ton of software out there that was built once upon a time and then that bit was never updated. I've seen this issue out in the wild across more industries than I can count.
This looks very readable. The one example I didn't like is the expanded one where it expanded all but 1 of the elements. I feel like that should be an all or norhing thing, but there's bound to be edge cases.
And BTW, thanks for supporting comments - the reason given for keeping comments out of standard Json is silly ( "they would be used for parsing directives" ).
It's a pretty sensible policy, really. Corollary to Hyrum's Law - do not permit your API to have any behaviours, useful or otherwise, which someone might depend on but which aren't part of your design goals. For programmers in particular, who are sodding munchkins and cannot be trusted not to do something clever but unintended just because it solves a problem for them, that means aggressively hamstringing everything.
A flathead screwdriver should bend like rubber if someone tries to use it as a prybar.
> A flathead screwdriver should bend like rubber if someone tries to use it as a prybar.
While I admire his design goals, people will just work around it in a pinch by adding a "comment" or "_comment" or "_comment_${random_uuid}", simply because they want to do the job they need.
If your screwdriver bends like a rubber when prying, damn it, I'll just put a screw next to it, so it thinks it is used for driving screws and thus behaves correctly.
On one hand, it has made json more ubiquitous due to it's frozen state. On another hand, it forces everyone to move to something else and fragments progress. It would be much easier for people to move to json 2.0 rather than having hundreds of json + x standards. Everyone is just reinventing json with their own little twist that I feel sad that we haven't standardized to a single solution that doesn't go super crazy like xml.
I don't disagree with the choice, but seeing how things turned out I can't just help but look at the greener grass on the other side.
JSON is used as config files and static resources all the time. These type of files really need comments. Preventing comments in JSON is punishing the wide majority to prevent a small minority from doing something stupid. But stupid gonna stupid, it's just condescending from Mister JSON to think he can do anything about it.
I was talking about the parent comment, which has spaces inside the parenthesis (I do prefer no spaces inside brackets and braces in my JSONs, but that’s another story).
There's an older pure Python version but it's no longer maintained - the author of that recently replaced it with a Python library wrapping the C# code.
This looks to me like the perfect opportunity for a language-independent conformance suite - a set of tests defined as data files that can be shared across multiple implementations.
This would not only guarantee that the existing C# and TypeScript implementations behaved exactly the same way, but would also make it much easier to build and then maintain more implementations across other languages.
Interestingly the now-deprecated Python library does actually use a data-driven test suite in the kind of shape I'm describing: https://github.com/masaccio/compact-json/tree/main/tests/dat...
That new Python library is https://pypi.org/project/fractured-json/ but it's a wrapper around the C# library and says "You must install a valid .NET runtime" - that makes it mostly a non-starter as a dependency for other Python projects because it breaks the ability to "pip install" them without a significant extra step.
And OK it's not equivalent to a formal proof, but passing 1,000+ tests that cover every aspect of the specification is pretty close from a practical perspective, especially for a visual formatting tool.
I've also been working in the other direction, making JSON more machine-readable:
https://github.com/kstenerud/bonjson/
It has EXACTLY the same capabilities and limitations as JSON, so it works as a drop-in replacement that's 35x faster for a machine to read and write.
No extra types. No extra features. Anything JSON can do, it can do. Anything JSON can't do, it can't do.
I know that LLMs are very familiar with JSON, and choosing uncommon schemas just to reduce tokens hurts semantic performance. But a schema that is sufficiently JSON-like probably won't disrupt model path/patterns that much and prevent unintended bias.
That way, the original JSON file stays clean and isn’t polluted with extra data.
If it's purely for machine consumption then I suspect you might be describing a schema and there are also tools for that.
Both objects desugar to a sequence of segments (lines).
The result is that you can freely mix expression/assignment blocks & statements. Things like switch-case blocks & macro tables are suddenly trivial to format in 2d.
Because comments are handled as right floating, all comments nicely align.
I vibe coded the base layer in an hour. I'm using with autogenerated code, so output is manually coded based on my input. The tricky bit would be "discovering" tables & block. I'd jus use a combo of an LSP and direct observation of sequential statements.
I can see potential usefulness of this is in debug mode APIs, where somehow comments are sent as well and are rendered nicely. Especially useful in game dev jsons.
Yaml - just say Norway
Stuff that would have been structurally impossible in XML will happen in yaml. And I don't even like XML.
And BTW, thanks for supporting comments - the reason given for keeping comments out of standard Json is silly ( "they would be used for parsing directives" ).
A flathead screwdriver should bend like rubber if someone tries to use it as a prybar.
While I admire his design goals, people will just work around it in a pinch by adding a "comment" or "_comment" or "_comment_${random_uuid}", simply because they want to do the job they need.
If your screwdriver bends like a rubber when prying, damn it, I'll just put a screw next to it, so it thinks it is used for driving screws and thus behaves correctly.
I don't disagree with the choice, but seeing how things turned out I can't just help but look at the greener grass on the other side.
Better not let me near your JSON files then. I pound in wall anchors with the bottom of my drill if my hammer is not within arms reach.
I also would have wanted comments, but I see why Crockford must have been skeptical. He just didn't want JSON to be the next XML.
> Insignificant whitespace is allowed before or after any token.