cpp-serializers VS cista

Funnily enough I just had a similar performance question yesterday and found someone else had done exactly this and answered my questions!

In 2017, I used this benchmark to test the software against other libraries. My library produced a smaller serialized size than Capnproto or Cereal: Capnproto 17,768 Cereal 17,416 CMW 16,712 The CMW-based approach was also faster than Cereal in this benchmark.

The optimizer can make boost::serialization run at the top speed with binary encoding while sacrificing portability. Here is a benchmark with it being twice as fast as ProtoBuf: https://github.com/thekvs/cpp-serializers. Do you have any benchmarks showing otherwise? I did my own tests about 2-3 years ago.

C++ has some reflection. You can checkout cista: https://github.com/felixguendling/cista

If you're looking for something faster but C++ specific, more compact in serialized size, more efficient in serialization you can try cista: https://github.com/felixguendling/cista

If you want to see, what's possible with plain C++ (no language changes needed), checkout https://github.com/felixguendling/cista

Can you give us some hint on what would be different in your project from the libraries that do roughly the same? The tser author has made a comment here, but I know that cista and zpp_bits probably have some overlap with alpaca. I just don't have a specific use case now, so I don't have an urge to dive deep into the topic, but in the past I've needed a library like yours, and right now I would have to evaluate half a dozen libraries to know would be "best" or more appropriate.