[dickeytk]

the only thing I miss are the comments

[kevinoid]

Then you may be happy to learn that OpenAPI documents can be written in YAML (since OpenAPI 2.0).

[tasogare]

Attributes are also super nice to extend existing data. Doing so in JSON is a nightmare.

[dvh]

If there were comments, people would start putting data in comments.

[dickeytk]

but for that you'd have to use a custom parser. If you use a custom parser you could put data in comments today anyways. I don't understand that argument.

[westurner]

JSON5 supports comments: https://json5.org/

[throwaway894345]

But who supports json5?

[hombre_fatal]

You can use json5 for comments and compile it to json.

[CameronNemo]

You can use (yaml, hjson, jsonnet) for the same purpose. What sets json 5 apart?

[Supermancho]

YAML, hjson and jsonnet do not validate existing json blobs. You can "use" ROT13 for the same purpose, but it's incidental in what you are trying to do.

I would plead that everyone stop using YAML. It's terrible at everything.

jsonnet is a template language for a serialization format. Who would choose that nightmare?

Ecmascript isn't big on extending the language orthogonally, so hjson is eventually going to be superceded by a ES*.

This is a niche concern that has an optimal path. Go with a validation schema designed for applying to a serialization format, which has widespread library support.

[CameronNemo]

>YAML ... do not validate existing json blobs

YAML 1.2 is a strict superset of JSON. What do you mean by "validate" here?

>I would plead that everyone stop using YAML. It's terrible at everything.

Fair enough.

>jsonnet is a template language for a serialization format. Who would choose that nightmare?

People who are tired of Jinja2 and YAML but don't want to jump to a general purpose programming language?

>widespread library support

JSON5 is implemented in Javascript, Go, and C#. Not sure how "widespread" that is. Rust, C, Python, Lua, Java, and Haskell are missing out on the fun.