[wissler]

Nonsense. This is just more arrogance.

JSON is code because I use it as code. It's not your business to tell me it's not code -- you haven't seen how I'm using it. And don't go chirping that I should only do things your way, it's none of your god damned business what I'm using it for.

Further, if JSON was really only data, then it's an incredibly stupid way to store data, given that it has a human-readable syntax that the computer can only deal with after it's been parsed. As data, it's bloated and inefficient. To the extent that JSON is a good format, it's code. To the extent that it's data, it's not a good format.

[DominikR]

A fork can be a spoon for you, if you choose to use it that way. Nobody is telling you what you are supposed to use it for, but still JSON was designed as data format.

If you don't like the format or feel that JSON is too restrictive/bad feel free to extend it or create your own format from scratch.

[TeMPOraL]

> still JSON was designed as data format

While I don't think that comments belong in JSON, I don't agree JSON is designed as "data and not code" format. Trees of tokens are actually the natural format for writing code (also known as Abstract Syntax Trees, AST) and the data/code distinction is really, really blury when those two meet together, so it's only to be expected that people will end up coding in JSON (what are the 'build definition' files for various build tools / package managers, if not very simple programs)?

[IanCal]

You can use a screwdriver as a hammer all you want, it's not going to make it a good idea. This isn't a free speech issue.

> Further, if JSON was really only data, then it's an incredibly stupid way to store data, given that it has a human-readable syntax that the computer can only deal with after it's been parsed. As data, it's bloated and inefficient.

So use something else. Also, a computer can only read any file after it's been parsed in some way. I'm not really sure what you're suggesting as an alternative.

> To the extent that JSON is a good format, it's code

Is it executable? Is it turing complete?

[TeMPOraL]

> Is it executable? Is it turing complete?

It represents groups of more-less arbitrary tokens as trees, therefore it's a natural format for code representation as it's equivalent to an AST, therefore it's trivial to attach a basic execution context with if and lambda defined, and now it's executable and turing-complete.

[IanCal]

So any indented text file would be considered code?

[dragonwriter]

> JSON is code because I use it as code

You could use JSON as code, but that's somewhat silly, because there's already a superset of JSON designed for that use.

[nonchalance]

Technically not true: http://timelessrepo.com/json-isnt-a-javascript-subset

        {"JSON":"ro
cks!"}

(there's a unicode line separator -- 2028)

[defen]

> JSON is code because I use it as code

You can't use JSON to compute things, therefore it is not code (unless you are willing to concede that any document format is code).

[krapp]

Maybe a more useful resolution to this would be to state that while all code is data, no data should be code?

You could, if you were crazy enough, write perfectly valid JSON that passed the values to eval() or a parser or what have you. And while there are encodings in JSON that don't work in javascript (i've broken JS innumerable times trying to get that to work) JS does of course allow you to add closures as an object, or an array, whatever you like, and some forms of valid JSON (if not all) are also valid javascript. So you could indeed use JSON to compute things if you wanted to.

[TeMPOraL]

> unless you are willing to concede that any document format is code

Because it is. Data vs. code distinction is arbitrary. The following sequence of characters:

"echo 'foobar';"

can be interpreted as describing a string, a series of tokens, a piece of code, a piece of music or a small icon, whatever interpretation you choose.

[defen]

Yes, I understand that "code is data". This does not mean that data, in general, is code; unless you are willing to make the words completely meaningless. "Code" requires some notion of an execution platform/environment, which does not exist for arbitrary data. Here is a string: "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog". Or how about "\u0000\u0000". That is not code, as generally understood.

[TeMPOraL]

> "Code" requires some notion of an execution platform/environment, which does not exist for arbitrary data.

Arbitrary data don't exist without some notion of an execution (or interpretation) platform.

We tend to use "code" as a word for "commands telling some execution process what to do" and "data" as a word for "information that is meant to be transformed" but in reality this distinction is meaningless; both are fundamentally the same thing, and even our "code" vs. "data" words have blurry borders. It's very apparent when you start reading configuration files. For example, aren't Ant "configuration files" essentially programs[0]?

We all know what we usually mean in context by saying what is "code" vs. what is "data", but one has to remember, that in fact they are the same - minding it leads to insights like metaprogramming. Forgetting about it leads to dumb languages and nasty problems, and is generally not wise.

[0] - the answer is: yes, they are, see http://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/lisp.html for more.

ETA:

Questions to ponder:

- are regular expressions code, or data?

- is source written in Prolog code, or data?

Also I recommend watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEfedtQVOY to learn how what would be data, as defined by formal grammars of some real-world protocols, can - by means of sloppy grammars and bad parser implementation - cross the threshold of Turing-completeness and become code.

[defen]

I understand all this. Like many people, I've written programs in C++ templates. But I think we're talking past each other because you want to make a pedantic point. I'm using the words as they are generally understood, not in a technical computer science way. I'm talking about first-level stuff, not metaprogramming. Let me give you some questions to ponder:

- Is the text of Hamlet code?

- Was it code as soon as Shakespeare wrote it?

- If not, did it become code once the electronic computer was invented? Or did that happen once a version was stored in a way accessible to an electronic computer?

- Did all the existing paper copies immediately become code at that point as well?

[dragonwriter]

> Is the text of Hamlet code?

> Was it code as soon as Shakespeare wrote it?

Yes, the text of a play is code meant to be executed by humans.

[TeMPOraL]

> But I think we're talking past each other because you want to make a pedantic point.

I guess that's true.

The flavour of "code vs. data" discussion in this thread was one of representation formats. You could argue that when looking at works of art from past centuries one should immediately say "data!" [0]. But in case of JSON, a format suspiciously almost identical to Lisp in structure, one needs to be careful in saying "it's for data, not for code".

Actually, I'm not sure what kind of point I'm trying to make, as the more I think of it, the more examples of things that are borderline code/data come to my mind. Cooking recipes is the obvious candidate, but think about e.g. music notation - it clearly feels more like "code" than "data".

I feel that you could define a kind of difference between "code" and "data" other than in intent, something that could put bitmaps into the "data" category, and a typical function into "code" category, but I can't really articulate it. Maybe there's some mathematical way to describe it, but it's definitely a blurry criterion. But when we're discussing technology, I think it's harmful to pretend that there's a real difference. Between configuration files looking like half-baked Lisp listings and "declarative style" C++ that looks like datasets with superfluous curly braces, I think it's wrong to even try to draw a line.

[0] - there's a caveat though. "How to Read a Book" by Mortimer Adler[1] discussess briefly how the task of a poet is to carefully chose words that evoke particular emotional reactions in readers. It very much sounds like scripting the emotional side of the human brain.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Read_a_Book