3 ms·
The author suggests using MessagePack, which I hadn't seen before but looks really cool. http://msgpack.org/ http://msgpack.org/
by robgering 13y ago
The author suggests using MessagePack, which I hadn't seen before but looks really cool.
http://msgpack.org/ http://msgpack.org/
- tmikaeld 13y agoIt sure looks impressive, thanks for linking
- jamieomatthews 13y agoThis does look pretty cool. I think the author is forgetting about so many reasons why JSON is so widely used, however. One huge benefit of JSON over msgpack or something similar is READABILITY.
- jwn 13y agoSo MessagePack wants me to ditch one of the most portable widely used data transfer formats in the world to save 33% on message size? No thanks. I'm willing to bet that using Content-Encoding: gzip on the JSON would negate most of the size difference anyway.
- denzquix 13y agoBut that also uses double precision floating point number representation and UTF-8 for strings, so the only benefit (according to the arguments given in the OP) seems to be text vs. binary-based.
- craigching 13y ago> But that also uses double precision floating point number representation I don't think JSON requires the number representation to be double-precision, that can be up to the parser to decide how to represent a number. I think most people misrepresent this because the number implementation in JavaScript is double-precision, but that's not necessarily true for JSON. Am I wrong about that? Does JSON require the number format to be double-precision?
- denzquix 13y agoI had to check but yeah, that's true, the ECMA spec even says explicitly in its intro: "JSON is agnostic about numbers", they are "only a sequence of digits". (Unrelated observation from looking at the spec again: there's no standard/recommended decoding behaviour if an object has several members with the same key.)