2 ms·

I controlled both ends. There is nothing "insane" about JSON. It's used far and wide for many purposes. The system sending the JSON was based on Nodejs, so it w

I controlled both ends. There is nothing "insane" about JSON. It's used far and wide for many purposes. The system sending the JSON was based on Nodejs, so it was pretty natural to use JSON. And I did it with JSON just because I wanted to. I'd have had to invent some other protocol to do it anyway, and I didn't feel like reinventing the wheel when it was quite simple to write a basic JSON parser in assembly language, which is what I am comfortable with on the embedded system (been coding assembly for 40 years).

userbinator 1y ago
For something that simple I'd choose a custom binary protocol or something like ASN.1 instead of JSON. It's easier to generate from a HLL and parse in a LLL (I've also been writing Asm for a few decades...)
- leptons 1y ago
  I've done plenty of custom binary protocols before. I can't say they were any better or easier to deal with. I also can't say that the "parser" for a binary format was any easier than a simple, limited JSON parser. For this specific project I chose JSON and it worked perfectly. Sending JSON from the embedded CPU was also really simple. Yes, there was a little overhead on a slow connection, but I wasn't getting anywhere near saturation. I think it was 9600 bps max on a noisy connection with checksums. If even 10% of the JSON "packets" got through it was still plenty for the system to run.
- johnisgood 1y ago
  I would love to use ASN.1 if other programming languages would match up to Erlang's ASN.1. :(
  - Yeask 1y ago
    Even if is not popular here .NET does support ASN.1, not sure if at the same level as Erlang.
- cozzyd 1y ago
  It depends on the use case. JSON has a lot of tooling making it convenient in a lot of cases