[theamk]

> It's not to late to switch away from JSON, it really isn't.

Yes, it is. People are already used that in dynamic languages (javascript, python, ruby), you can work with unknown structures in a performant way, and they will be mapped properly to the underlying data model.

They are not going to switch to something where you need to have a schema just to parse it properly.

[zeveb]

> People are already used that in dynamic languages (javascript, python, ruby), you can work with unknown structures in a performant way, and they will be mapped properly to the underlying data model.

That's actually one of my concerns with JSON: it doesn't really convey the underlying data model. Sure, it can handle numbers — but it can't handle constraints like 'age must be positive.' Sure, it can handle strings — but there's no way in JSON to differentiate between Base64-encoded bytes & a normal string.

JSON lets one play with data, but one never knows if it's actually valid. It's dynamic typing, applied to data itself.

[theamk]

Exactly, it conveys underlying data model of dynamic languages, or to be specific, of a common subset of their data types.

As for data validity, this is completely separate question. I don't believe that validation should be a part of the language or data format -- my language lets me write 'age = "yellow"', and so should my data format.