On 01/05/13 14:15, Cedric BAIL wrote: > WTF ! I am not saying that without a benchmark ! Where do you think > that came from ? Just random praising for the fun ?
You said you haven't tested cJSON, only json-c. I asked you about it!> > Because there is no complexity there. It just work. There is no > maintenance cost. There is no need to bring an external dependency for > 100 lines of code. Pfft yeah, sounds like every other piece of code every written. > >> Mike can interject, as he has used cJSON before, and I don't remember him >> mentioning any issues. > > So running cJSON, then converting to Eina_Value or C structure by hand > in the application side is faster than just running a stupid automate > that produce them in the first place... Let's wait for mike. I wonder what he did. Also I wonder if you'd end up changing the Eina_Value and lists to your own struct anyway 99.99% of the time. Surely there must be a lib that let's you parse it straight to your data type, but that might be slower. > >> Your main argument is the speed, though I have requested benchmarks and >> comparisons with eina_json yet I have seen none. If it's so simple to >> implement, how come there are so many implementations? How come they vary in >> speed so much? And where do we stand compared to others? > > Because it is damn easy to write one implementation ! Because most of > the speed doesn't come from the parser automate who is always the same > stupid table, but from the hash, object, list and array object > manipulated. That is where the cost come from. And I am not only > arguing about speed, but also integration and simplicity of use. > Really forcing everyone to link with another library for less than > 1000 lines of code, to have another object api to manipulate, to do > all the conversion manually is a great help to every one. Of course it > is doable in the application. Of course you can write your own, it is > so damn easy. > > As for the benchmark, we are going to reuse the one written by QT. I > am going to do proper review and cleaning as necessary after 1.9, > there is nothing to look at at this stage. I have already spend more > time arguing on that subject that I am sure it will take me to write > an implementation from scratch and likely to ever maintain it. Let's wait for the benchmarks then. I find it really odd that the only different in speed is the implementations of the hash-tables and lists. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
