JSON vs. XML with Douglas Crockford
Again?<p>I&#x27;ll probably listen to this at some point and genuinely like hearing about the origins of JSON from Crockford himself.<p>Apart from that, I&#x27;d be surprised if this adds anything to what I&#x27;ve already heard and read ad nauseam, including from Crockford himself.<p>JSON is just a nice, simple serialization format that compresses well and interoperates acceptly with most programming languages. Most importantly with the language that it was designed to be consumed by: Javascript.<p>If one needs better performance or better guarantees about serialized data types, I guess one should use Protobuf, and&#x2F;or ASN.1 (was that even correctly spelled?) or any of the countless other formats I have no clue about.<p>If you need better schema restrictions and interconnected entities + circular references: use a database, I guess.<p>At least everything XML has done in this space has more or less failed (e.g. SOAP). Well, failed might be too strong a word.<p>But all the work on defining data types and schema seems almost independent of the underlying syntax.<p>Since I&#x27;ve now spent too much time on this uninformed first comment, I will now listen what Douglas Crockford wants to say. But I think I&#x27;ve already read this story in another form a couple of years ago.<p>JSON is really a good example of &quot;worse is better&quot;. E.g. an OpenAPI spec with automated client code and TypeScript definitions is not much different from SOAP on the surface level.