That confirms exactly what tyler said. I'm not sure if you're misreading replies to your posts or misreading your own posts, but I think you're really missing the point.
Let's go through it point by point.
- tyler said "JSON Schema is not an ISO standard". As far as I can tell, this is true, and you have not presented any evidence to the contrary.
- tyler said "JSON Data Interchange Format is a standard, but it wasn’t published until 2017, and it doesn’t say anything about 1.0 needs to auto cast to 1". This is true and confirmed by your own link, which is a standard from 2017 that declares compatibility with RFC 8259 (tyler's link) and doesn't say anything about autocasting 1.0 to 0 (because that's semantics, and your ISO standard only describes syntax).
- tyler said "JSON Schema isn’t a specification of the language, it’s for defining a schema for your code", which is true (and you haven't disputed it).
Your response starts with "yes it is", but it's unclear what part you're disagreeing with, because your own link agrees with pretty much everything tyler said.
Even the part of the standard you're explicitly quoting does not say anything about 1.0 and 1 being the same number.
Why did you bring up JSON Schema (by linking to their website) in the first place? Were you just confused about the difference between JSON in general and JSON Schema?
@masterspace Love the confidence, but your facts could do with some work.
- "Interpreted language" is not a thing. Interpreted vs compiled is a property of a particular implementation, not the language.
(I wonder how you would classify lazy functional languages like Haskell. The first implementations were all interpreters because it was not clear that the well-known graph reduction technique for lazy evaluation could be compiled to native code at all.Today, hugs (a Haskell interpreter written in C) isn't maintained anymore, but GHC still comes with both a native compiler (ghc) and an interpreter (runghc, ghci).) - Most implementations that employ interpretation are compiler/interpreter hybrids. It is rare to find an interpreter that parses and directly executes each line of code before proceeding to the next (the major exception being shells/shell scripts). Instead they first compile the source code to an internal representation, which is then interpreted (or, in some cases, stored elsewhere, like Python's
.pycfiles or PHP's "opcache"). - You can tell something is a compile-time error if its occurrence anywhere in the file prevents the whole file from running. For example, if you take valid code and add a random
{at the end, none of the code will be executed (in Javascript, Python, Perl, PHP, C, Haskell, but not in shell scripts). - The original "lint" tool was developed because old C compilers did little to no error checking. (For example, they couldn't verify the number and type of arguments in function calls against the corresponding function definitions.) "Linting" specifically refers to doing extra checks (some of which may be more stylistic in nature, like a
/*FALLTHRU*/comment in switch statements) beyond what the compiler does by itself. - If I refer to an undeclared variable in a Perl function, none of the code runs, even if the function is defined at the end of the file and never called. It's a compile-time error (and I don't have to install and configure a linting tool first). The same is true of Haskell.
What's funny to me is that Javascript copieduse strictdirectly from Perl (albeit as a string because Javascript doesn't haveusedeclarations), but turned it into a runtime check, which makes it a lot less useful.
Not to be rude but not having a linter configured and running is a pretty basic issue.
Yeah, if you're a C programmer in the 1980s, maybe. But it's 2006 now and compilers are able to do basic sanity checks all on their own.
I haven’t used Perl though, what do you like better about it?
"Undeclared variable" is a compile-time error.
@masterspace "Undeclared variable" is a runtime error.
Perl.