Igor, It's not clear that I need to be part of this discussion. If you want to invent a new serialization format, then go for it. I did chime in with my opinion that your suggested format was not very readable. You happen to disagree with me. That's fine. I also mentioned that YAML is a standard format that is designed to be very readable by humans while still being parsable by a machine. You told me that I was missing the point. That's fine. You told me that the point is that you can encode arbitrary objects in literal arrays and that this representation is optimizable by the compiler. That's nice, but it is still not readable by humans (in my opinion) and I don't want to involve the compiler ... I don't want to execute code directly from the repository - I want to insert a parser, so that we have control over the code that gets executed. Obviously the goals that you have for this notation do not match up with the requirements that I have. That's fine. I am not in dire need of "yet another Notation format". STON adequately fills the bill for what I need at the moment. I have responded to Eliot with more detail about why I consider JSON to be more readable than your original suggestion. I haven't commented on the readability of your other suggestions because I am assuming that you don't have code written to actually parse the different variations that you proposed. Sooo, it's not clear that I can contribute much more. Dale ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Igor Stasenko" <siguctua@gmail.com> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 2:11:37 PM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals | | On 19 October 2012 22:15, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> wrote: | > Igor, | > | > I think we can agree that readability is subjective, beyond that | > I'm afraid that we aren't going to see eye to eye. | > | > Put us in the same room with a whiteboard and we might be able to | > understand each other's perspective if not come to see eye to eye. | > | > Separated by thousands of miles...the best we can hope for is to | > agree to disagree. | > | | For me it is important for discussion to have decision point, a way | to go. | If discussion ends with just "we disagree" this is useless discussion | then, and we just losing time here. | | One of the decisions, we got is that Sven will take an effort | implementing that. | So, we have a practical outcome. Which is best one i ever expected. | :) | This is matters. And whether we agree or disagree it doesn't :) | | We can disagree on zillions of things (and this is good btw), but | when | people joining forces to develop something together, | they should come to some agreement otherwise they will be unable to | even start doing anything :) | | > Dale | | | -- | Best regards, | Igor Stasenko. | |