Am I the only one that finds the use of "stringify" as the method name to serialise a data structure a bit... unsavoury on the tongue? A touch Mickey Mouse? I always wondered why this word was chosen for something so "core".
Am I the only one that finds the use of "stringify" as the method name to serialise a data structure a bit... unsavoury on the tongue? A touch Mickey Mouse? I always wondered why this word was chosen for something so "core".
According to the guy who created JavaScript, Brendan Eich[0]:
> On Nov 16, 2008, at 11:57 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
> > The name "JSON.stringify" seems a little too "Web 2.0" cool to me.
> Hardly. It's hacker dictionary material, old sk00l.
> > Is there any reason a more usual and serious sounding option like "serialize" was not used?
> Ugh, Web 1.0 my-first-Java-serializable-implementation anti-nostalgia vapors.
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20100718152229/https://mail.mozi...
When the next best option is "serialize", suddenly stringify doesn't seem so bad. I would prefer a silly-sounding but immediately clear function to a more abstract concept.
That's exactly it though - That's the word: A bit too web 2.0....
Serialize, Marshal, toString: timeless. Stringify: Trendy, gone with the winds...