Meme transcription: Panel 1. Two images of JSON, one is the empty object, one is an object in which the key name maps to the value null. Caption: “Corporate needs you to find the difference between this picture and this picture”

Panel 2. The Java backend dev answers, “They’re the same picture.”

  • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
    13·
    3 days ago

    Nope.

    If there’s a clear definition that there can be something, implicit and explicit omission are equivalent. And that’s exactly the case we’re talking about here.

    • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
      21·
      3 days ago

      Sure, in a specific scenario where you decide they’re equivalent they are, congratulations. They’re not generally.

      • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
        12·
        3 days ago

        Did you read the comments above?

        You can’t just ignore context and proclaim some universal truth, which just happens to be your opinion.

        • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.socialEnglish
          41·
          3 days ago

          At the (SQL) database level, if you are using null in any sane way, it means “this value exists but is unknown”. Conflating that with “this value does not exist” is very dangerous. JavaScript, the closest thing there is to a reference implementation for json serialization, drops attributes set to undefined, but preserves null. You seem to be insisting that null only means “explicit omission”, but that isn’t the case. Null means a variety of subtly different things in different contexts. It’s perfectly fine to explicitly define null and missing as equivalent in any given protocol, but assuming it is not.

          • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
            1·
            3 days ago

            Again, did you actually read the comments?

            Is SQL an API contract using JSON? I hardly think so.

            Java does not distinguish between null and non-existence within an API contract. Neither does Python. JS is the weird one here for having two different identifiers.

            Why are you so hellbent on proving something universal that doesn’t apply for the case specified above? Seriously, you’re the “well, ackshually” meme in person. You are unable or unwilling to distinguish between abstract and concrete. And that makes you pretty bad engineers.

            • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.socialEnglish
              11·
              3 days ago

              If your SQL model has nulls, and you don’t have some clear way to conserve them throughout the data chain, including to the json schema in your API contract, you have a bug. That way to preserve them doesn’t have to be keeping nulls distinct from missing values in the json schema, but it’s certainly the most straightforward way.

              The world has more than three languages, and the way Java and Python do things is not universally correct. I’m not up to date on either of them, but I’m also guessing that they both have multiple libraries for (de) serialization and for API contract validation, so I am not really convinced your claims are universal even within those languages.

              I am not the other person you were talking to, I’ve only made one comment on this, so not really “hellbent”, friend.

              Yes, I am pretty sure I read the comments, although you’re making me wonder if I’m missing one. What specific comment, what “case specified above” are you referring to? As far as I can see, you are the one trying to say that if a distinction between null and a non-existent attribute is not specified, it should universally be assumed to be meaningless and fine to drop null values. I don’t see any context that changes that. If you can point it out, specifically, I’ll be glad to reassess.