[erlang-questions] JSON for STDLIB

[Sean Cribbs]

zip is used in reltool for making compressed code archives. gzip is used in
a number of places, including term_to_binary with compression. I think the
previous posters' points still stand.

I think the proper path for JSON into the standard library is the way many
other language communities have done it. Let competing implementations
start as a third-party libraries, and then if (and only if) there is enough
momentum and pressure around a single candidate take steps to include it.
The main challenge I see for any of this happening with Erlang/OTP is that
getting patches accepted is difficult enough already, and every one of the
existing JSON libraries uses a slightly different style. It's probably best
as third party library.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Éric Pailleau <eric.pailleau@REDACTED>
wrote:

> Hi,
> I agree but there is some lack however, zip/gzip exists in Otp, but not
> bzip nor lzma2.
> As it is ports, it should be done at core level while json can be external
> libraries.
> Those compressions formats are now very common in particular lzma2. Really
> missing.
> Regards
>
> Le 7 sept. 2015 09:39, Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED> a écrit :
> >
> > On 09/07/2015 03:34 AM, Theepan wrote:
> > > Team,
> > >
> > > Is there any reason why a JSON library is not included into Erlang/OTP
> > > releases? Since it was initially planned for telco systems, it includes
> > > ASN.1 library. It has some other transfer-format libraries as well.
> >
> > ASN.1 isn't just a "transfer-format", it's something OTP itself *uses*.
> > Without the ASN.1 application, there would be no public_key application,
> > and therefore no SSL, to name one.
> >
> > JSON would be just sitting there. What's the point?
> >
> > Another argument against it is one you cited in your email: there are
> > already a variety of open source JSON libraries. Each has different
> > properties and are useful to different people. Why would you include one
> > and basically doom the others? Which one would you bundle? Will that
> > choice make sense to everyone?
> >
> > Finally, I'm not sure what's the point? If you are using Erlang.mk, to
> > use jsx, you need to add this single line to your Makefile:
> >
> > DEPS = jsx
> >
> > If jsx was part of OTP, you would need to add this single line to your
> > Makefile:
> >
> > OTP_DEPS = jsx
> >
> > The advantage of bundling it in OTP are not obvious, to say the least.
> >
> > In general I believe OTP should reduce the number of libraries it comes
> > with, not increase it. It's easy to find a library fitting your needs
> > nowadays. Erlang.mk for example has 470 packages and you can search them
> > in one easy command: make search q=json
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > --
> > Loïc Hoguin
> > http://ninenines.eu
> > Author of The Erlanger Playbook,
> > A book about software development using Erlang
> > _______________________________________________
> > erlang-questions mailing list
> > erlang-questions@REDACTED
> > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20150907/7b65670b/attachment.htm>