Meme transcription:

Panel 1: Bilbo Baggins ponders, “After all… why should I care about the difference between int and String?

Panel 2: Bilbo Baggins is revealed to be an API developer. He continues, “JSON is always String, anyways…”

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Unless you’re dealing with some insanely flexible schema, you should be able to know what kind of number (int, double, and so on) a field should contain when deserializing a number field in JSON. Using a string does not provide any benefits here unless there’s some big in your deserialzation process.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      What’s the point of your schema if the receiving end is JavaScript, for example? You can convert a string to BigNumber, but you’ll get wrong data if you’re sending a number.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Because no one is using JSON.parse directly. Do you guys even code?

          • bleistift2@sopuli.xyzOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            It’s neither JSON’s nor JavaScript’s fault that you don’t want to make a simple function call to properly deserialize the data.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’m not following your point so I think I might be misunderstanding it. If the types of numbers you want to express are literally incapable of being expressed using JSON numbers then yes, you should absolutely use string (or maybe even an object of multiple fields).

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          The point is that everything is expressable as JSON numbers, it’s when those numbers are read by JS there’s an issue

                • lad@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I disagree a bit in that the schema often doesn’t specify limits and operates in JSON standard’s terms, it will say that you should get/send a number, but will not usually say at what point will it break.

                  This is the opposite of what C language does, being so specific that it is not even turing complete (in a theoretical sense, it is practically)

                  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    Then the problem is the schema being under specified. Take the classic pet store example. It says that the I’d is int64. https://petstore3.swagger.io/#/store/placeOrder

                    If some API is so underspecified that it just says “number” then I’d say the schema is wrong. If your JSON parser has no way of passing numbers as arbitrary length number types (like BigDecimal in Java) then that’s a problem with your parser.

                    I don’t think the truly truly extreme edge case of things like C not technically being able to simulate a truly infinite tape in a Turing machine is the sort of thing we need to worry about. I’m sure if the JSON object you’re parsing is some astronomically large series of nested objects that specifications might begin to fall apart too (things like the maximum amount of memory any specific processor can have being a finite amount), but that doesn’t mean the format is wrong.

                    And simply choosing to “use string instead” won’t solve any of these crazy hypotheticals.