json-benchmark VS rust

I don’t really understand what this is trying to prove:

- you don’t seem to specify the size of the input. This is the most important omission

- you are constructing an optimised representation (in this case, strict with fields in the right places) instead of a generic ‘dumb’ representation that is more like a tree of python dicts

- rust is not a ‘moderately fast language’ imo (though this is not a very important point. It’s more about how optimised the parser is, and I suspect that serde_json is written in an optimised way, but I didn’t look very hard).

I found[1], which gives serde_json to a dom 300-400MB/s on a somewhat old laptop cpu. A simpler implementation runs at 100-200, a very optimised implementation gets 400-800. But I don’t think this does that much to confirm what I said in the comment you replied to. The numbers for simd json are a bit lower than I expected (maybe due to the ‘dom’ part). I think my 50MB/a number was probably a bit off but maybe the python implementation converts json to some C object and then converts that C object to python objects. That might half your throughput (my guess is that this is what the ‘strict parse’ case for rustc_serialise is roughly doing).

[1] https://github.com/serde-rs/json-benchmark

But the code OP posted deserializes JSON without knowing anything about the structure, which is known to be slow in serde-json and doesn't appear to be the focus for the library. The json and json-deserializer crates should perform much better in that scenario.

Of course that doesnt mean that in practice the available libraries are as optimized. Did you try actix? It tends to be faster than rocket. Also json-rust and simd-json are usually faster than serde-json, when you don't deserialize a known structure. Here are some benchmarks: https://github.com/serde-rs/json-benchmark

The data for the test is taken from here: https://github.com/serde-rs/json-benchmark/tree/master/data

Here are some benchmarks https://github.com/serde-rs/json-benchmark

I found two projects: * https://github.com/djkoloski/rust_serialization_benchmark - doesn't use Serde zero copy * https://github.com/serde-rs/json-benchmark - has copy vs borrowed, but the results were the same for both, so something's off there

Rust has a good enough standard library (I’d say comparable to C++), that you don’t really need packages for a lot of stuff. Most of my projects have 1 or 2 dependencies. Most of the time I am pulling in a JS parser (serde) and a parallelization library (rayon). These are both high performance libraries that make writing very fast (serde can handle 850 MB/s on a 5 year old laptop cpu per their benchmarks). Rayon is one of the best parallelism libraries I’ve worked with.

> There are online Rust compilers and interpreters already if you just want to rapid prototype and develop ideas in Rust

You are responding to one of the key developers of Rust early on[1], who's been working with the language for 14 years at that point.

[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/graphs/contributors?from=2... and he's still #16 in commits overall today, despite almost no activity on the rust compiler since 2014.

If you haven't dipped your touch-typing fingers into Rust yet, you really owe it to yourself. Rust is a modern programming language with features that make it suitable not only for systems programming -- its original purpose, but just about any other environment, too; there are frameworks that let your build web services, web applications including user interfaces, software for embedded devices, machine learning solutions, and of course, command-line tools. Since a custom GitHub Action is essentially a command-line tool that interacts with the system through files and environment variables, Rust is perfectly suited for that as well.

Here's an example of someone citing a disagreement between CRT and shell32:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44650

This in addition to the Rust CVE mentioned elsewhere in the thread which was rooted in this issue:

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/04/09/cve-2024-24576.html

Here are some quick programs to test contrasting approaches. I don't have examples of inputs where they parse differently on hand right now, but I know they exist. This was also a problem that was frequently discussed internally when I worked at MSFT.

    #include 

> instead of choosing a certain numbered version of the random library (if I remember correctly) I let cargo download the latest version which had a completely different API.

Yeah, they didn't follow the instructions and got burned. I still think that multiple things went wrong simultaneously for that experience. I wonder if more prevalent uses of `#[doc(alias = "name")]` being leveraged by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120730 (which now that I check only accounts for methods and not functions, I should get on that!) so that when changing APIs around people at least get a slightly better experience.

Almost fixed the compiler: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123325

Rust: A secure, efficient, and modern programming language (omitting ten thousand words). You can simply follow the installation instructions provided on the official website.

Recently did something similar in Rust but for generating SVGs. We've adopted it for snapshot testing of cargo and rustc's output. Don't have a good PR handy for showing Github's rendering of changes in the SVG (text, side-by-side, swiping) but https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121877/files has newly added SVGs.

To see what is supported, see the screenshot in the docs: https://docs.rs/anstyle-svg/latest/anstyle_svg/

We strongly believe in Rust as a powerful language for building production-grade software, especially for systems like ours that run alongside Kubernetes.