I think I like it, The multi-line \\ I'm not so sure about, but it means you can indent multi-line fields without screwing up the content. I guess it's only when manually creating entries that you get annoyed by typing the same characters over and over.
I also quite like the statement
Alpha, using Ziggy now means participating in its development.
It is neither, "go-away, it's not ready", nor boldly proclaiming to be more than it is. It encourages engagement.
Reposting my comment from when Ziggy came up on Lobsters:
Hi all, author here, just a quick warning: the version is v0.0.1 for a reason.
I developed Ziggy as part of my work on the Zine static site generator (https://zine-ssg.io) and, while I do believe there’s something to improve over JSON (as I stated in the frontpage copy, and other documentation pages) at least for my own usecases, I have developed Ziggy up to the point of being usable from Zine and then went back to work on the SuperHTML templating language / html language server.
I will do in the near future a second round of polishing on Ziggy and smooth out some things I’m unhappy with (e.g. custom string literals and how those interact with enums in particular), so beware that Ziggy has to compete for resources with the rest of the Zine ecosystem… and a lot of things in the Zine ecosystem require more work still.
For Ziggy to be competitive vs protobuf it would need more machinery for managing schema changes, which currently is not there at all.
I'm currently writing an application where I'm doing binary serialization of data and I'm not sure yet how that should play into Ziggy, but as I explore my use cases more I will change Ziggy accordingly.
That said, I will probably always err on the side of small scale, so it might very well never become a format worth considering vs protobuf. We'll see.
I think I like it, The multi-line \\ I'm not so sure about, but it means you can indent multi-line fields without screwing up the content. I guess it's only when manually creating entries that you get annoyed by typing the same characters over and over.
I also quite like the statement
Alpha, using Ziggy now means participating in its development.
It is neither, "go-away, it's not ready", nor boldly proclaiming to be more than it is. It encourages engagement.
Reposting my comment from when Ziggy came up on Lobsters:
Hi all, author here, just a quick warning: the version is v0.0.1 for a reason.
I developed Ziggy as part of my work on the Zine static site generator (https://zine-ssg.io) and, while I do believe there’s something to improve over JSON (as I stated in the frontpage copy, and other documentation pages) at least for my own usecases, I have developed Ziggy up to the point of being usable from Zine and then went back to work on the SuperHTML templating language / html language server.
I will do in the near future a second round of polishing on Ziggy and smooth out some things I’m unhappy with (e.g. custom string literals and how those interact with enums in particular), so beware that Ziggy has to compete for resources with the rest of the Zine ecosystem… and a lot of things in the Zine ecosystem require more work still.
the bytes type seems awkward. a compromise that leaves noone happy
why should i prefer this over protobuf?
I would prefer this over JSON.
For Ziggy to be competitive vs protobuf it would need more machinery for managing schema changes, which currently is not there at all.
I'm currently writing an application where I'm doing binary serialization of data and I'm not sure yet how that should play into Ziggy, but as I explore my use cases more I will change Ziggy accordingly.
That said, I will probably always err on the side of small scale, so it might very well never become a format worth considering vs protobuf. We'll see.