|
honey the codewitch wrote:
People are religious about never reinventing the wheel, but it's not always such a bad thing - it depends on the wheel.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: hosting the .NET CLI in C++ just to use a .NET package from C++ to parse a little JSON seems heavy handed and horribly inefficient.
If you're using C++, why not use a C++ JSON library such as Modern JSON, RapidJSON or simdjson?
Or if you do develop your own library, you might be interested to look at simdjson's 'On Demand' parsing approach...
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
They use too much memory and can't target IoT. of them simdjson shows the most potential but it still isn't about 71 bytes to do an episodes query off of a tmdb.com show data dump
Real programmers use butterflies
modified 18-Dec-20 6:46am.
|
|
|
|
|
Some people have to work on air gap networks, where you can not copy anything to the network. It comes configured with a couple of approved things like the operating system, and whatever comes bundled with say Visual Studio 2015, and that's it. Nothing else gets in. With good reason too, e.g. see supply chain poisoning like the recent SolarWinds incident.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty trusting.
When someone says they're going to give me JSON I assume they'll give me JSON.
So I'd go for it and worry about validation when the party that should be giving me JSON isn't giving me JSON.
So far that has worked pretty well.
In practice, these kind of things rarely break.
You either get JSON or no JSON at all, but rarely (or even never) a badly formed JSON.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree! 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Since JSON is such a well defined construct simple parsers are very easy to write. I have a few. The nub is of course in 'a few'. It really falls into the case usage arena. If you know the data a quick regex parser will do. Regex parsers are fundamentally flawed though, and tend to fail on large data sets containing mixed characters (locale is a pain).
So, well-formedness is largely there already. Two dimensional arrays only require a few lines of code. Multi dimensional arrays just a few more. Large unknown datasets across languages? Use someone else's library and save yourself time.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Or you could do one that's significantly faster but skips well formedness checking during search/skip operations, which can lead to later error reporting or missed errors
As with all input to your program, you validate on reception. All the other code that uses that input after that can then assume valid input and you can choose whatever shortcuts you want to on the assumption of valid input.
Doesn't matter if the input is JSON, XML, key/value pairs from .ini files or tokens, you only validate it once on reception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A key question is what this parser will be used for.
Is it for a hobby project or a production system?
What would be the benefits of the higher performance? Will it be perceivable for human users? Will it save money by requiring less hardware? How much money?
Is there an impact on the development effort? What is the impact on the resulting code in terms of maintainability?
What would be the cost of choosing one option now and updating to the other option later? (is it a full rewrite? would it be simpler to go from A to B, or from B to A? etc.)
What would be the code of implementing both options and letting the user (well, caller) decide which one to use?
There are many things to factor in this decision. Maybe different developers will give different weights to these considerations, and inexperienced developers will overlook some or all of them, but I believe that for most developers the answer would (and should) be "it depends on the details of the situation".
|
|
|
|
|
Stability over performance!
|
|
|
|
|
I take a function-first approach. You won't be able to parse the JSON if it's not well formed, so I would do that check first. If performance is poor, then I'd do a trace to find the bottlenecks and address them if possible. I wouldn't want to spend my time unnecessarily tracking down import errors.
|
|
|
|
|
I look at it this way - and keep in mind this is purely hypothetical:
Let's say you're bulk uploading parts of some JSON out of a huge dataset. Almost always that JSON is machine generated because who writes huge JSON by hand? Scanning through it quickly is important. If at some point you get a bad data dump, might it be better to roll back that update and then run a validator over the bad document that one time out 1000 when it fails, rather than paying for that validation every other 999 times?
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
As a general rule, I try to follow these steps in order:
1. Make the program run right.
2. Make the program run right.
3. Make the program run right.
4. If I really need to, make it faster.
|
|
|
|
|
That works to a point but certain design decisions for performance must be made up front.
For example, deciding to use a pull parser as the primary way of navigation rather than an in memory tree.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
4a. You always need to make it faster.
|
|
|
|
|
Case 1, input good, output good - answer faster,
Case 2, input bad, error message, but delayed ( is it clear )
Case 3, input bad, program sticks it's tongue out and dies
Case 4, input bad, quiet wrong result
so, who has to deal with 3, and can 4 happen? ( with malicious input ?)
( They ARE out to get you. )
|
|
|
|
|
Until I realized in the process of trying to explain them that they probably are. Just because I find something intuitive doesn't mean I can make it intuitive to others. 
The secret with pointers is to enjoy the freedom they bring you rather than fearing the danger they present. Aside from that, the rest is details.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
My confusion with pointers started very early this morning, since I read the subject as, 'printers aren't confusing.'
Time for coffee...
|
|
|
|
|
Au contraire printers are very confusing. 
|
|
|
|
|
If you ever PCL, then you know...blech! 
|
|
|
|
|
Kris Lantz wrote: Time for coffee...
Why did you do that? The only thing you should do before drinking coffee is making coffee. Any other action is futile, except you won't be assimilated.
|
|
|
|
|
On the weekends, coffee enjoyment is top of the list. The weekdays are a bit more chaotic, and coffee may not be had until about a half hour after getting to work. 
|
|
|
|
|
Kris Lantz wrote: The weekdays are a bit more chaotic, and coffee may not be had until about a half hour after getting to work
Make coffee at home and bring a travel mug?
All jokes aside, sipping my coffee while reading morning emails helps me settle my mind and prepare for the work day. For me there is a settling effect in sipping coffee, even during an ugly commute. I normally work early hours, so the commute isn't as ugly in the AM as the PM, and the folks in the office at my arrival time are doing the same as me, so there is not usually immediate chaos. [Anyone who arrives to immediate chaos appreciates this.]
However -- these days, going to work consists of getting up, starting a pot of coffee, and then logging in. My commute is 35 steps instead of 34 miles.
I really appreciate WFH!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Even better -- visit your favorite coffee shop. 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
