Re: In memory Stream

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 2024-02-20 20:37, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:55:30 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>> On 2024-02-20 01:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:32:42 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>
>>>> You did not say why JSON is needed.
>>>
>>> Because it’s such a convenient meta-format,
>>
>> Meta of what?
> 
> You don’t understand the concept of “meta-formats”?

Nope. The meaning of the word "meta" is having an object made out of 
entities operating some other objects. E.g. meta-language vs object 
language, metadata (data about data), logical inference vs logical 
predicates.

Meta-format must represent formats rather than data. JSON is not that 
thing. It is just a [bad] data representation format.

> Maybe you prefer
> “format family” or “format superclass”. Does that help make things
> clearer?

No. I don't care about classifications of poorly designed formats. JSON 
is not a format family and a family of formats is not a meta-format.

> It is something easily specialized to become an application-
> specific format, with less effort than creating the specific format from
> scratch.

It is always the same format. JSON's inability to describe any 
constraints does not make it *specialized*. The burden of checks is 
moved to the application, the format is same. All such stupid thinks 
only add overhead, additional points of failure and make designing 
reasonable recovery logic impossible.

[ It keeps me wonder. The coding theory exists more than hundred years. 
People are inventing square wheels made of cabbage leaves instead of 
taking some short course... ]

> An earlier example is XML. Also IFF on the Commodore-Amiga, from the
> 1980s.

You can go back as far as to Hollerith specifications... (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de