alt Hacker News> The reason never made much sense, anything can be abused (...)
I don't think your take makes sense. Comments were purposely left out of JSON to mitigate the problem described by Hyrum's law.
Smaller interface means a smaller surface to allow abuse. You're just arguing to facilitate abuse because you feel the abuse that was indeed avoided by leaving comments out is unavoidable, which is a self-contradiction.
On top of that,think about the problem for a second. Why do you feel it's reasonable to support comments in data interchange formats? This use case literally means wasting bandwidth with data that clients should ignore. The only scenario where clients are not ignoring comments if exactly the scenario that it's being avoided: abusing it for control purposes.
If you want a data interchange format to support that, you should really adopt something that is better suited for your whole use case.
> and your suggestion doesn't help with eg syntax highlighting tools for your config that will treat comments as syntax errors (...)
That's the whole point. This is by design, not a fault. Why are you pretending a language supports a feature it never supported and explicitly was designed to not support?
> Smaller interface means a smaller surface to allow abuse.
If you take your law seriously, this is irrelevant because the surface of abuse is on the same scale of practical infinity, so it doesn't matter that one infinity is technically smaller.
For example, based of the example in the quote: you could stick those directives from comments info #hashtags in stringy values, with the same effect that there is no interoperable way to parse values (or if you add "_key_comment" - there is no interoperable way to even parse keys as some of them need to be ignored)
So the designer has achieved no benefit by removing a valuable feature
> abuse that was indeed avoided
Nothing was avoided, you can have the exact same abuse tucked into other elements
> Why do you feel it's reasonable to support comments in data interchange formats?
Why does the author of the quote sees the obvious which you don't see even after reading the quote? Go convince him his comment makes no sense because of "data interchange"
Obviously it's not only used for data interchange in cases where every byte matters (reminder: this is a TEXT-based format) and also comments matter to humans working with this data
> adopt something that is better suited for your whole use case.
And this discussion is literally about a format supports that? But also, how does this in any way mitigate the flaws in the designer's arguments?
> Why are you pretending a language supports a feature it never supported and explicitly was designed to not support?
Same thing, why is the author of the quote makes this senseless suggestions then? Go convince him first