this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
572 points (98.1% liked)

Programmer Humor

19512 readers
415 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Feyter@programming.dev
anzo@programming.dev
BurningTurtle@programming.dev
pylapp@programming.dev
572
Surely "1337" is the same as 1337, right? (sopuli.xyz)
submitted 4 months ago by bleistift2@sopuli.xyz to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
116 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Meme transcription:

Panel 1: Bilbo Baggins ponders, “After all… why should I care about the difference between int and String?

Panel 2: Bilbo Baggins is revealed to be an API developer. He continues, “JSON is always String, anyways…”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brian@programming.dev 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

json doesn't have ints, it has Numbers, which are ieee754 floats. if you want to precisely store the full range of a 64 bit int (anything larger than 2^53 -1) then string is indeed the correct type

[–] bleistift2@feddit.org 1 points 4 months ago

Let me show you what Ethan has to say about this: https://feddit.org/post/319546/174361

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 months ago

json doesn’t have ints, it has Numbers, which are ieee754 floats.

No. numbers in JSON have arbitrary precision. The standard only specifies that implementations may impose restrictions on the allowed values.

This specification allows implementations to set limits on the range and precision of numbers accepted. Since software that implements IEEE 754 binary64 (double precision) numbers [IEEE754] is generally available and widely used, good interoperability can be achieved by implementations that expect no more precision or range than these provide, in the sense that implementations will approximate JSON numbers within the expected precision. A JSON number such as 1E400 or 3.141592653589793238462643383279 may indicate potential interoperability problems, since it suggests that the software that created it expects receiving software to have greater capabilities for numeric magnitude and precision than is widely available.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8259.html#section-6