That just seems to be what happens when so many people have to collaborate.
Plus its still just mega young. Look at legal systems, they've been around forever and it can be your life's work just to understand them at a competency to participate.
The miracle of software isn't that it works, it's that it does anything at all.
That's ridiculous. JSON is replacing XML which is a well-established interchange technology that doesn't have all the problems of JSON (like no good way to represent 64 bit numbers, weak typing, barely any types in the first place, etc).
Yep, it only has strings either way (also, "weak typing" does not mean jack shit, and talking about typing strength for a serialization format makes zero sense)
Schemas are metadata, annotations to tell processors "treat this string as [some other datatype]" (note how it's not going to work if you're not using the schema and a schema-aware processor?)
And guess what? Nothing stops you from doing exactly the same thing in JSON. In fact you don't have much of a choice for the datatypes JSON doesn't natively support (dates being the most common one, but not the only one by any mean). And good JSON interfaces provide for embedding transcodings directly in the parsing or dumping (that's what the `reviver` and `replacer` arguments do in JSON.parse and JSON.stringify) for exactly that purpose.
> PS: I still don't like XML, but your comment is technically incorrect.
Nope. Specific XML dialects may have non-string datatypes (XML-RPC certainly does), but XML only has strings. In the same way CSV only has strings, but specific CSV uses may have more. That's the plain facts of the matter.
Plus its still just mega young. Look at legal systems, they've been around forever and it can be your life's work just to understand them at a competency to participate.
The miracle of software isn't that it works, it's that it does anything at all.