On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:49:20 -0700, Richard Levasseur wrote: > On Jul 25, 5:52 pm, Matt Nordhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Also, simplejson and python-cjson might not be entirely compatible: >> there's one character that one escapes and the other doesn't, or >> something. -- > > They also have different interface. simplejson uses load/loads/dump/ > dumps, whereas cjson using encode/decode (its pretty simple to > monkeypatch cjson with some lambda's so it has the same interface, > though). > > Yeah, its frustrating that there are so many json encoders for python. > Its a bit disappointing simplejson is going into the stdlib; i hope they > rewrite it in C?
C's great for performance, but if you want something featureful and reliable, you're probably better off in something else - including but not limited to python, optionally with psyco. I wish the pypy people would package up their stuff into a form that you can just ./configure && make && make install and then #! to - I believe it'd grow/mature faster than it is if they did (and they may have, but last time I looked it didn't appear so). But once they do, that might be a convenient way of getting better performance. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list