circe VS jvm-serializers

Using Circe so I define some classes that contain my custom Encoder[BusinessObject] in a file and I use that whenever I want to save/store a record, or handle a web request or respose. I also represent my mongo queries as JSON objects that I can freely build then pass to the driver.

Circe adopters should be using Scala https://github.com/circe/circe

If you look at Circe's github repo you will see a very large list of very recognizable companies, that should give you some idea. Circe isn't the ONLY Json parsing library, but it is probably the most popular, so - should give you a rough idea of the types and variety of companies using Scala.

Has the worst error messages I've ever seen for a parser. "Attempt to decode value on failed cursor" is not helpful when all you have is missing fields. Has been an issue for 5 years.

Circe tries to drop Scala 2.12 support in retaliation for not enough users paying them.

Circe: https://circe.github.io/circe/

PR for the same functionality in Scala3: https://github.com/circe/circe/pull/1800

Otherwise I tend to just use ZIO-JSON or Circe both of which have been updated for Scala 3.

I've updated results of benchmarks of 12 JSON parsers for Scala: - AVSystem's scala-commons - Borer - Circe - DSL-JSON - Jackson - jsoniter-scala - Play-JSON, - play-json-jsoniter - Spray-JSON - uPickle - weePickle - zio-json

Compared with protobuf, fury is 3.2x faster. When comparing with avro, fury is 5.3x faster. Compared with flatbuffers, fury is 4.8x faster. See https://github.com/eishay/jvm-serializers/wiki for detailed benchmark data

First, there's benchmarks here if you haven't seen it: jvm-serializers. Not terribly scientific, but it's something. To make any decision, you really need to benchmark your own object graph and it's important to configure the serializer for your particular usage. Still, it is sort of useful for comparing frameworks. It would be interesting to see how Loial performs there. Ping me if you add it.

It depends. Some binary encodings such as flatbuffer are actually slower than some JSON libraries. There's a wide range of performance even in the JSON libraries themselves. Generally the faster JSON libraries are the ones that work on a predefined schema and so are able to generate code specifically for that JSON.

> I'm surprised this is up for debate.

I looked into logging in protobuf when I was seeing if there was a better binary encoding for ring-buffer logging, along the same lines as nanolog:

https://tersesystems.com/blog/2020/11/26/queryable-logging-w...

What I found was that it's typically not the binary encoding vs string encoding that makes a difference. The biggest factors are "is there a predefined schema", "is there a precompiler that will generate code for this schema", and "what is the complexity of the output format". With that in mind, if you are dealing with chaotic semi-structured data, JSON is pretty good, and actually faster than some binary encodings:

https://github.com/eishay/jvm-serializers/wiki/Newer-Results...

You could use any of the JVM serialisers which should still work.