The performance baseline was a pleasant surprise, but does get me thinking:
How complex is Jackson? It's thousands of lines of code. I know I just
wrote this library to help avoid writing recursive descent parsers
manually, but maybe for JSON specifically an approach like Go's scanner [1]
is
I'm really impressed by how fast it is out of the box with basically no
optimisations. Tatu Saloranta is fanatical about Jackson performance,
getting to within 6x on the first attempt is very promising.
On 20 November 2015 at 02:43, Ghadi Shayban wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look.
>
> User-level
Thanks for taking a look.
User-level bytecode allows me an easier choice to build a JIT or tracing
infrastructure, while being far less complex than writing out JVM bytecode
during grammar compile.
Christophe has certainly been a help offline with design choices. I wanted
PEG, no ambiguity, u
This is interesting !
It reminds me of Parsnip from C.Grand [0], have you considered it when
desining pex ? As your parser is focusing of characters, I am wondering :
could the operations triggered by the execution of your pex code be simple
enough to warrant actual compiling to JVM bytecode (at
Here is a compliant JSON parser in 99 LOC, implemented with *pex, a new
parsing library*. [1]
This is alpha software.
Hot off the heels of Colin Fleming's Conj talk on PEGs [2], I'm making
public an early version of pex [3], a parsing library in the PEG family.
For those of you familiar with
