My comment was to point out how ridiculous the parents comment is in response to the article.
What does the length of the JSON spec have to do with my comment? The parent comment says if you don’t read all your docs you will be bit by an innocuous bug. You linked to a short spec, but that doesn’t mean anything in this context.
> Like if a bridge collapses when a leaf lands on it and saying, well, all bridges have some maximum load.
Is that what you got from reading my comment or the article? Is that what yaml is like?
Sorry, I misread the flow of the conversation. If anything my comment made more sense as a reply to the one you replied to, rather than yours.
More specifically, I missed the first line of their comment: "Are people not even reading about what they are using?" If you miss off that line, then it sounds (to me) that they're arguing YAML is a terrible format. With that line, it turns out they think it's reasonable, so long as you read the (huge) spec first. Madness!
It's not addressing what you said. I don't think what you said is very relevant, as the "read the spec" doesn't add anything to a discussion about whether something is a good idea to use. Length of spec is relevant to that question.
What does the length of the JSON spec have to do with my comment? The parent comment says if you don’t read all your docs you will be bit by an innocuous bug. You linked to a short spec, but that doesn’t mean anything in this context.
> Like if a bridge collapses when a leaf lands on it and saying, well, all bridges have some maximum load.
Is that what you got from reading my comment or the article? Is that what yaml is like?