The name JSON.stringify
On Nov 16, 2008, at 11:57 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
The name "JSON.stringify" seems a little too "Web 2.0" cool to me.
Hardly. It's hacker dictionary material, old sk00l.
Is there any reason a more usual and serious sounding option like "serialize" was not used?
Ugh, Web 1.0 my-first-Java-serializable-implementation anti-nostalgia
vapors.
Both are nine characters. I think there is a marketing issue here elevating JavaScript from a "toy language". Although that concept has been decreasing there is no need to encourage it.
The very good reason not to mess with stringify or parse is that
json2.js has already shipped, and we are pre-empting its global
property name "JSON". Object-detecting scripts that conditionally
include or eval json2.js will fail if we don't workalike.
The name "JSON.stringify" seems a little too "Web 2.0" cool to me. Is there any reason a more usual and serious sounding option like "serialize" was not used? Both are nine characters. I think there is a marketing issue here elevating JavaScript from a "toy language". Although that concept has been decreasing there is no need to encourage it.
Peter