That just shows poor judgement on behalf of the developer who made that decision, not a failing of the language.
I don’t see how assigning blame is productive here. People choose the wrong language, wrong library, or wrong tool all the time.
Not really. JSON offers no challenge in editing by hand. All comments I've seen in this thread boil down to people trying to pass off whimsical nice-to-haves as this sort of insurmountable problem.
I mean, I do like a nice git history with small diffs. Not supporting trailing commas is unfortunate as it can cause the trailing line to show up in diffs if you add a comma there. But is this a problem? No, it is not.
Let's be honest here: JSON5 solves no problem worth solving, at the expense of breaking compatibility.
The problem I have is, I need a configuration language that is human readable, familiar to developers without teaching (anybody who knows JS, or to some extent Python and PHP), is also machine writable, and supports comments. The only language that supports this is JSON+comments (next contenders would be INI (!) and then XML). JSON5 just helps by giving it a name, a consistent implementation, and packages for many languages. I've rolled my own JSON+comments (or "static subset of Python / JS literals") multiple times, and am glad there is a community standard now.
The trailing comma is really an issue, because it works in JS, and it is an arbitrary restriction in JSON. If you learn JSON on the job (and think of it as "JavaScript Object Notation" i.e. JS literals) then you will run into this, and it causes unneccessary frustration.
Since every JSON5 package I know produces valid plain JSON, compatibility is never an issue.
At the end of the day, you can do anything you need to do in C.
What's the point of having all these other languages?
