Re: New JSON library from the maker of Beast!

From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-10-22 21:49:51

You guys are overthinking it. You know how fast this JSON parser is, you
like the API (or you don't), it works correctly => you use it (or you
don't). If correctness is critical for you, wait a few months until the
rate of commits declines. File bugs if you find them. Who cares _how_ it
works?

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:42 PM Robert Ramey via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 10/22/19 2:03 PM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
>
> > Furthermore json::basic_parser is optimized to work well for
> > incremental inputs, Spirit on the other hand is not. But I'm no Spirit
> > expert so if someone wants to show me how a Spirit based parser can
> > match the hand-rolled version feature for feature at the same or
> > better performance, that would be quite interesting.
>
> First of all I'm not sure what you by incremental inputs.  Maybe it
> means the same as in the serialization xml parse which I think does one
> phrase on demand rather than setting it up and letting'er rip.
>
> I've conceded to your decision about not using spirit rather than your
> hand rolled version as a component of your JSON parser.  My suggestion
> is that you consider it for use in your test suite where dependencies
> are not an issue but provable correctness is.  It's much easier to
> verify the correctness of a grammar in bnf or peg than it is to verify
> the correctness of a hand rolled parser.   So you can make a test
> program in spirit which whose correctness can be statically verified and
> use it test same strings you use to test your hand rolled version and
> verify you get the exact same results.  This avoids having to manually
> verify the correct results for every test string.  And makes the process
> of adding a new test string trivial rather than onerous.
>
> You've described in detail your plans for ensuring that your parser is
> correct. The way you do it it's a huge amount of work involving many
> people and subject to human frailties.  And the correctness of your
> checking can't really be verified by someone other than the person that
> does it.  Adding more people and more work doesn't really increase
> confidence.  Using an alternative method which is more provably correct
> is much more likely to smoke out a bug.  And it's a lot less work too!
>
>