From: Maximilian Riemensberger (riemaxi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-09-23 18:50:49
On 9/23/20 1:55 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
> Consider this: a Hana DusÃkovÃ¡ type all-constexpr JSON parser could let
> you specify to the compiler at compile time "this is the exact structure
> of the JSON that shall be parsed". The compiler then bangs out optimum
> parse code for that specific JSON structure input. At runtime, the
> parser tries the pregenerated canned parsers first, if none match, then
> it falls back to runtime parsing. Given that much JSON is just a long
> sequence of identical structure records, this would be a very compelling
> new C++ JSON parsing library, a whole new better way of doing parsing.
> *That* I would get excited about.
Great. There's really quite a lot of things to imagine about future C++
and libraries to be written in future C++ that get me excited.
There are also things about C++ that really don't excite me and probably
most other people as well. To name a few examples: std::vector, std::string,
etc. They are not perfect, they are not fancy, they are not even pretty.
But they are useful. Almost every day. To many, if not most C++ developers.
And they perform well. In many ordinary use-cases.
That's where I could see Boost Json: It's not perfect and probably also not
pretty in parser-aesthetic terms (judging from some the review comments).
But for me it combines a simple and widely-used user interface (similar to
nlohmann's) with decent performance (similar to rapidjson). That gives me
90% of both worlds. And I get it now / soon. As a user of Json libraries,
I find this a worthwhile trade-off.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk