nativejson-benchmark VS papers

Well it would depend on the specifics of the JSON file but eyeballing the stats at https://github.com/miloyip/nativejson-benchmark/tree/master seems to indicate that even on a 2015 MacBook the parsing proceeds using e.g. Configuru parser at several megabytes per second.

Maybe you need to try some other third party json library and see if it helps. This is a good list https://github.com/miloyip/nativejson-benchmark

Glancing at some benchmarks, RapidJSON stringifies at around 250MB/s on a single core (content-dependent, of course). Does not look like a bottleneck.

How does it compare to the immensely popular JSON for Modern C++ library by nlohmann? https://github.com/nlohmann/json

Also, you should add your library to the JSON benchmarks here: https://github.com/miloyip/nativejson-benchmark#parsing-time

I like your ideas, but they seem difficult to enforce. It assumes good faith on all sides. One of the biggest complaints about AI/ML research results: It is frequently hard/impossible to replicate the results.

One idea: The edge competitors can create a public (SourceHut?) project that runs various daily tests against themselves. This would similar to JSON library benchmarks. [1] Then allow each competitors to continuously tweak there settings to accomplish the task in the shortest amount of time.

Also: It would be nice to see a cost analysis. For years, IBM's DB2 was insanely fast if you could afford to pay outrageous hardware, software license, and consulting costs. I'm not in the edge business, but I guess there are some operators where you can just pay a lot more and get better performance -- if you really need it.

[1] https://github.com/miloyip/nativejson-benchmark

There's some useful benchmarks here. I found it while looking for stats on json-c vs parson, which I've used a fair amount.

If you looking for benchmarks to show in which cases your library is better than other 30 or so competitors, then see this repo https://github.com/miloyip/nativejson-benchmark

JSON data files from this project: https://github.com/miloyip/nativejson-benchmark

Such a shame, really. There is a ton fast json parsers there, like https://github.com/miloyip/nativejson-benchmark#parsing-time. And second issue is just hilarious: let's scan array millions of times, who needs hashmaps anyway?

What's fun is, because everything is decided in papers, we can find out why! https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/884

Accepted paper here: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p20...

> The proposed std::print function improves usability, avoids allocating a temporary std::string object and calling operator<< which performs formatted I/O on text that is already formatted. The number of function calls is reduced to one which, together with std::vformat-like type erasure, results in much smaller binary code (see § 13 Binary code).

Additionally,

> Another problem is formatting of Unicode text:

> std::cout << "Привет, κόσμος!";

> If the source and execution encoding is UTF-8 this will produce the expected output on most GNU/Linux and macOS systems. Unfortunately on Windows it is almost guaranteed to produce mojibake despite the fact that the system is fully capable of printing Unicode

See https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/557

Bringing editions to C++ failed, and I am not aware of anyone trying to tackle the issues https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/631

(I could be wrong though! I follow the committee more than you may guess, but not as much as to think I know everything about what's going on.)

GitHub would not be relevant in this respect because:

* It's owned by a (single) commercial corporation, Microsoft.

* There is censorship both by content and in some respects by country of origin.

* The code is closed.

but otherwise it's an interesting idea.

The C++ standardization committee uses GitHub to track papers submitted to them, see:

https://github.com/cplusplus/papers

There was no non-approval. The facility needs more work, and the authors (and the committee) were focusing on getting print/format done first. I hope that the paper will be worked on again in the future. We will be happy to review it once there is a revision (see github for history)

For more details on what we did at the 2023-06 Varna meeting, the [GitHub issue](https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/328) associated with the paper has a summary.

You subscribe to the Github issue of the proposal: https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues