[8338550bff96]

Yeah, I'm not really following the line of reasoning presented on the "/history" page: https://typeschema.org/history

It seems to me like a mischaracterization of JSON Schema to say you can't define a concrete type without actual data.

I am a very stupid individual so I could be misunderstanding the argument.

[andix]

I can't really follow those arguments either. For example the empty object example {}. Why is this bad? Types without properties are a real thing. Also an empty schema is a real thing.

The thought I do get: JSON Schema primarily describes one main document (object/thing). And additionally defines named types (#/definitions/Student). But it's totally fine to just use the definitions for code generation.

The reference semantics of JSON Schema is quite powerful, a little bit like XML with XSD and all the different imports and addons.

[llamaLord]

Maybe it's just me, but I've never been able to get a complex type schema to work properly with JSON schema.

The moment you have types referencing other types in a way that can become recursive in ANY way, the whole thing seems to explode.