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…”

  • 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.

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

                    Underspecified schema is indeed a problem, but I find it too common to just shrug it off

                    Also, you’re very right that just using strings will not improve the situation 🤝