4 ms·
We assessed what prior work had been done and found these attempts to ultimately be unsatisfactory performance-wise for the breadth of JavaScript clients we wou
by swannodette 12y ago
We assessed what prior work had been done and found these attempts to ultimately be unsatisfactory performance-wise for the breadth of JavaScript clients we would like to reach.
- nimish 12y agoI would love to see this data--it would help me greatly when picking a format that needs to work.
- swannodette 12y agohttp://jsperf.com/json-bson-msgpack/2 http://jsperf.com/json-bson-msgpack/2 Look at JSPerf for other serialization formats vs. JSON. They all look pretty much like this. Compare these results to http://jsperf.com/json-vs-transit/2 http://jsperf.com/json-vs-transit/2 where in some cases we beat JSON.
- kybernetikos 12y agoWe have also found that none of the common serialization formats perform acceptably in javascript except JSON (and that's huge on the wire). As an aside, transit seems dramatically faster in v8 than in firefox, at least in the versons of browsers I'm using, despite the fact that JSON.parse and hydrate are faster in firefox. Has it been specially optimised for v8?
- swannodette 12y agoWe did not specifically optimize of for V8, the optimizations present resulted in a performance win in all browsers. Firefox simply does not deliver the same performance as V8 or JavaScriptCore for this kind of work. Still I think Transit is plenty acceptable under Firefox for many typical JavaScript programs. Hopefully the existence and usage of Transit will encourage Firefox to further improve their JavaScript performance profile.