2 ms·

Protobuf is not size efficient. The half self-describing nature and built-in backwards/forwards compatibility features sacrifice a lot of bits in efficiency. I'

by jupp0r 8y ago

Protobuf is not size efficient. The half self-describing nature and built-in backwards/forwards compatibility features sacrifice a lot of bits in efficiency. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, just that choosing protobuf if bandwidth efficiency is your main goal is probably not a good idea.

the_other_guy 8y ago
See my other reply below under this comment tree, I also tried flatbuffers and it was extremely inefficient compared to protobuf but I don't have numbers currently for it
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  "msgpack and flatbuffers are worse" is faint praise.