this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
591 points (98.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

30013 readers
1519 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They were chucked out because, according to the guy who defined it, people started using them for parsing directives, which hurt interoperability because now you needed to be sure that the parser would both read the comments and interpret them correctly. Suddenly, those comments might make otherwise identical files parse differently. If the whole point is that it's reliable and machine-readable, keeping it to the minimal set of features and not extending it any way whatsoever is a good way to ensure compatibility.

What you can do is define some property for comments. It's not standardised, but you could do stuff like

{
  "//": "This is a common marker for comments",
  "#": "I've never seen that as a property name, so it might be safe?",
  "_comment": "Property names with underscore for technical fields seem common enough as well, and it's semantically explicit about its purpose"
}
[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not a real programmer but I was wondering wtf you're on about because I don't think I've ever worked with a json file in a system that didn't use // for comments lmfao

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 1 points 5 hours ago

Python, for example

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

And also, JSON was intended as a data serialisation format, and it's not like computers actually get value from the comments, they're just wasted space.

People went on to use JSON for human readable configuration files, and instantly wanted to add comments, rather than reconsider their choice because the truth is that JSON isn't a good configuration format.

[–] BorgDrone@feddit.nl 6 points 22 hours ago

JSON was intended as a data serialisation format

Why then use a inefficient text based format instead of a much more efficient and easy to parse binary format?

Just use DER encoded ASN.1 like a normal person.

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago

People went on to use JSON for human readable configuration files

Speaking from my own experience, "I could also use this for..." seems to be a ubiquitous programmer affliction. Single-purpose tools that are great at their thing tend to be short-lived unicorns until someone starts sticking other parts onto them for additional functionalities, taking off the horn because it's in the way for some thing or other, and somehow we end up with yet another multi-function-tool that does a lot of things poorly.