An actual likely explanation since the other comments are busy being cynical: Their library was authored in August 2015, which was roughly a year after Swift's initial release. It's very likely that they critically needed one of the features in the Features section of their README and nothing off-the-shelf at the time offered it.
I'm sure they had no idea it was a solved problem in Swift and are very embarrassed...
The level of arrogance to think we know better than the developers working at a company on what they should / shouldn't write is astounding.
Nike doesn't need to justify anything to any of us, though as someone who writes apps using Swift, it looks distinctly different from other JSON parsers. I'll explore using it in a future project.
Somewhat prevalent here on HN, I've noticed. Middlebrow dismissals and condescending comments that fail to consider context seem to be even more regular than normal lately, though that's probably just my mind playing tricks on me.
A "solved" problem? I think that is a ridiculous thing to say. Just because people know how to parse json does not mean there aren't solutions that are more performant or useable. Shit maybe they just wanted to parse and collect frequency counts of keys or something all in the same pass? There are reasons to do so.
We're talking about JSON parsing here: a solved problem.
Solved for your use case(s), you mean. You're saying that you cannot imagine a reasonable circumstance under which off-the-shelf solutions wouldn't fit your needs? (Hint: if you write code for a living, this very scenario is why you have a job.)
Welcome to Developers 2.0, where writing a program means duct-taping together 500+ 'micro libraries' (each of which has a dependency tree like fucking crab grass) with maybe a dozen lines of bootstrap code.
Yes it amuses / frustrates me that people site working with JSON as a reason for using node.js. Every mainstream language can parse and create JSON trivially.
“[…] Our company is so scared of data bases that it will not even create a group by that name, deemed “too emotional”! It ends up creating a group called “basic data.” The managers have taken six months to achieve this play on words. Things have moved fast in other areas, however: there is growing international demand for better software within our sister companies. I am sent to Holland to represent GLOBGAS-France at a meeting that also includes GLOBGAS-UK, Deutche-GLOBGAS, and other related organizations. The meeting lasts two days and concludes with an exceptionally fine dinner at an executive’s home in a suburb of Amsterdam. Our host goes around the table to ask each of up what we feel is the best investment the company can make in the computer field. The answer from each expert is “a generalized data-base system.” Our host looks very stern and there is silence.
Then he states, “I understand your needs, and the Group is aware of this requirement. But we are not in the software business. We are in the oil business.”
We bow our heads, as befits young and well-educated European engineers when the boss has spoken. But there is a young Texan GLOBGAS-US with us, and he feels no such constraint.
“Well, now,” he says, “down there in Houston we spend about sixty million bucks on programming each year. I reckon we’re in the software business.”
