[Lazare]

But the point is that if you have comments in your JSON, the first time you do some sort of "for key in data" to transform the data and spit it back out, the comments are gone; you may never even realize they were there to start with.

If you do that with the metadata explicitly stored as a separate key-value pair in your blob, then this doesn't happen; the meta data is never silently discarded when you, say, take all the key value pairs in the JSON blob and send them out down the wire to a client. If you want to strip the meta-data, you have to do that.

I know this isn't Python, but I think the Zen of Python is on point here: "Explicit is better than implicit."

[groovy2shoes]

> But the point is that if you have comments in your JSON, the first time you do some sort of "for key in data" to transform the data and spit it back out, the comments are gone; you may never even realize they were there to start with.

If you've stored comments as regular data, you haven't lost them but you've just transformed them in the output.

[jerf]

Your criticism appears to be based on a transform written with an incomplete understanding of the source data. I'd submit the problem lies in the incomplete understanding of the source data, not the fact the source data had comments. If your transform didn't "know" comments were possible, what else did it not "know"?

TANSTAAFL.

[dpark]

> I'd submit the problem lies in the incomplete understanding of the source data

I'd submit that an incomplete understanding of the source data is not necessarily a problem. It's often a design goal. Generic tools have a limited understanding of the source data by design. I don't want my JSON parser/formatter/minifier/etc. to know about some silly parsing rules you added as comments. I want my JSON parser to understand JSON as it's defined.

Your nonstandard comment directives are the problem, not the fact that I didn't write a custom tool.