Parsing JSON is indeed a minefield. However, a commenter in HN has a suggestion: Use postscript instead of JSON. It has a binary format, has comments, and generally looks much better. Here is their provided example:

  <<
    /first_name (John)
    /last_name (Smith)
    /is_alive true
    /age 27
    /phone_numbers [
      <<
        /type (home)
        /number (212 555-1234)
      >>
      <<
        /type (office)
        /number (646 555-4567)
      >>
    ]
    /spouse null
  >>

And I agree, it is much better than JSON. There are many other interesting things to like here. For one, the keys are symbolic. There is only one character `/` indicating the keys in a dictionary (indicated by `<<`). This reduces the visual clutter to a great extent. Using `<<` for dictionaries is also great.  Dictionaries are one of the largest units in such formats containing data, and it is better to use two characters for their delimiters. By using `()` for strings, it provides a starting and ending delimiter for strings, and is better visually parsable than `"`. There are no commas in arrays. or dictionaries, removing the question of trailing commas. Overall, PON (Postscript Object Notation) is much better designed than JSON for human readability.