3 ms·
Why do they say JSON is faster than MessagePack and then link to a comparison for only Javascript? Most servers are not running Javascript, and most data goes i
by lbarrett 12y ago
Why do they say JSON is faster than MessagePack and then link to a comparison for only Javascript? Most servers are not running Javascript, and most data goes its entire lifetime untouched by Javascript.
There's some reason to believe that MessagePack is noticeably faster than JSON on every language but Javascript.
Edit: s/entirely/entire/
- swannodette 12y agoNo one is saying MessagePack is slower than JSON across the board. In fact for languages that have fast MessagePack implementations, server programs can speak to each other using the Transit MessagePack encoding. But having a good story to and from JavaScript was a big design constraint and Transit delivers this as well.
- papaf 12y agoI thought that the big advantage of MessagePack was that it was smaller and quicker over networks. Network effects are the biggest cause of delay when transferring data to remote machines and are much bigger than serialization performance. The localhost testing done in the article will not show this advantage of MessagePack.
- swannodette 12y agoTransit JSON payloads benefit from standard gzipping techniques for the cases where the latencies are quite large as is the case when communicating with client browsers. For the cases where latencies are not quite so big we have yet to see evidence that Transit JSON suffers dramatically.
- jmtulloss 12y agoIt is faster for most languages, and could be made faster in server-side JS. However, this article is talking about performance for browser JS, where lack of robust string decoding destroys msgpack performance.