Surely "1337" is the same as 1337, right?

@bleistift2@sopuli.xyz · 7 days ago

Surely "1337" is the same as 1337, right?

@Rednax@lemmy.world · 7 days ago

The worst thing is: you can’t even put an int in a json file. Only doubles. For most people that is fine, since a double can function as a 32 bit int. But not when you are using 64 bit identifiers or timestamps.

Ethan · 7 days ago

That’s an artifact of JavaScript, not JSON. The JSON spec states that numbers are a sequence of digits with up to one decimal point. Implementations are not obligated to decode numbers as floating point. Go will happily decode into a 64-bit int, or into an arbitrary precision number.

@Aux@lemmy.world · 6 days ago

What that means is that you cannot rely on numbers in JSON. Just use strings.

JackbyDev · 5 days 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 · 5 days 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.

@bleistift2@sopuli.xyz · 3 days ago

What makes you think so?

const bigJSON = '{"gross_gdp": 12345678901234567890}';
JSON.parse(bigJSON, (key, value, context) => {
  if (key === "gross_gdp") {
    // Ignore the value because it has already lost precision
    return BigInt(context.source);
  }
  return value;
});
> {gross_gdp: 12345678901234567890n}

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/JSON/parse

@Aux@lemmy.world · 2 days ago

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

@bleistift2@sopuli.xyz · 2 days 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.

@Aux@lemmy.world · 2 days ago

It’s not up to me. Or you.

JackbyDev · 5 days 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 · edit-2 5 days ago

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

JackbyDev · 4 days ago

Can you give a specific example? Might help me understand your point.

lad · 4 days ago

I am not sure what could be the example, my point was that the spec and the RFC are very abstract and never mention any limitations on the number content. Of course the implementations in the language will be more limited than that, and if limitations are different, it will create dissimilar experience for the user, like this: Why does JSON.parse corrupt large numbers and how to solve this