On 03/11/2015 14:19, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > The value proposition of replacing our flawed JSON parser isn't in > > saving big on maintenance, it's in not having to find and fix its flaws. > > > > If the replacement needs a lot of work to fit our needs, the value > > proposition becomes negative. > > > > A JSON parser shouldn't require much maintenance, as JSON is simple, > > doesn't change, and parsing has few system dependencies. > > Let me suggest this crazy idea: have you guys considered breaking > compatibility?
Can you explain why that would make sense? :) (Especially since there is another extension---JSON5---that does exactly what we're doing, so it probably wasn't that stupid an idea). Paolo
