JSON Objectification: A Programmer's Domestic Dispute
Description
This meme leverages a pun on 'JSON object'. The top caption reads, 'Jayson object or something idk, I don't code'. Below is a stock photo of a man and a woman in a heated argument. The woman, looking dejected, has text over her saying, 'I'M SORRY JASON'. The man, who is yelling, has text over him that reads, 'YOU USED ME AS AN OBJECT'. A small watermark for 't.me/dev_meme' is in the bottom-left corner. The humor is derived from the phonetic similarity between 'Jason' and 'JSON' (JavaScript Object Notation), a ubiquitous data format in web development. The punchline is the double entendre of 'object' - referring both to the programming construct (a collection of key-value pairs) and the act of objectification in a personal relationship. It's a classic developer pun that maps a technical concept onto a human situation
Comments
7Comment deleted
She tried to explain that he wasn't just an object, he was a whole schema with nested properties, but he was already throwing a parsing error
Just got a JIRA titled “Stop using Jason as an object” - spent the stand-up clarifying that serializing a POJO into JSON isn’t grounds for an HR investigation
After 20 years in tech, I finally understand why JSON is stateless - it's been through too many failed relationships with parsers that promised to understand it but kept throwing unexpected token errors
The real tragedy here isn't the relationship drama - it's that after 20+ years in the industry, we're still explaining to stakeholders that JSON isn't a person and that 'using someone as an object' has very different implications in JavaScript than in HR. Though to be fair, both scenarios can lead to unexpected null reference exceptions in production
“Just send a Jayson object” - translation: no schema, types are vibes, and Postman is the source of truth
If your PO calls it 'Jayson object,' your next sprint is deserializing expectations
When non-coders discover JSON: treating relationships like objects without schema validation - expect circular reference breakups