Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Data Models of 63 JSON libraries

Expand Messages
  • Milo Sredkov
    Hello, JSON Groups Members! As I already mentioned, I recently finished analysing some large number of JSON libraries linked from json.org about the data
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 28, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello, JSON Groups Members!

      As I already mentioned, I recently finished analysing some large
      number of JSON libraries linked from json.org about the data models
      (or meta-models, information models, etc.) they use or assume. These
      analyses are done for the needs of the evaluation part of a JSON data
      model paper I am currently working on, but I think that they may be
      useful for someone else to. Here is what I have done:
      * All 72 links from http://json.org/ in the sections C++, C, Java,
      Python, Haskell, JavaScript, Ruby, C#, PHP, and Lisp were included – I
      picked these 10 languages because they are the most discussed ones
      according to http://langpop.com/ .
      * For each of these libraries, a quick analysis was performed based
      on its source code, documentation, unit-tests or actual hands-on
      experiments, in attempt to determine what information model is implied
      for JSON (most often, what the of parsing JSON is).
      * For each of these 72 libraries (minus 9, which were skipped) the
      information was summarised and reduced to several columns in the
      resulting table.

      Keep in mind that:
      * The result may contain errors because the libraries were analysed in
      about one hour on average only.
      * The data considers only the (actual or intended) data-model, i.e.
      how the JSON syntax is interpreted. It does not give any details about
      the quality of the implementations (which actually varied very
      dramatically), its usability, or even whether it works at all.

      So here is the link:
      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsfskDziXAR6dEpVUk9iT2RrODJ1amt1X0g5aWNRcEE&hl=en_GB

      If you find any problems in these entries, or have any comments please
      write me. I apologise in advance to the authors of the mentioned
      libraries if I have provided any incorrect information.

      Best,
      Milo Sredkov
    • rkalla123
      Milo this is a staggering amount of research. Thank you for compiling it all and sharing!
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 28, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Milo this is a staggering amount of research. Thank you for compiling it all and sharing!

        --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Milo Sredkov <miloslav@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hello, JSON Groups Members!
        >
        > As I already mentioned, I recently finished analysing some large
        > number of JSON libraries linked from json.org about the data models
        > (or meta-models, information models, etc.) they use or assume. These
        > analyses are done for the needs of the evaluation part of a JSON data
        > model paper I am currently working on, but I think that they may be
        > useful for someone else to. Here is what I have done:
        > * All 72 links from http://json.org/ in the sections C++, C, Java,
        > Python, Haskell, JavaScript, Ruby, C#, PHP, and Lisp were included â€" I
        > picked these 10 languages because they are the most discussed ones
        > according to http://langpop.com/ .
        > * For each of these libraries, a quick analysis was performed based
        > on its source code, documentation, unit-tests or actual hands-on
        > experiments, in attempt to determine what information model is implied
        > for JSON (most often, what the of parsing JSON is).
        > * For each of these 72 libraries (minus 9, which were skipped) the
        > information was summarised and reduced to several columns in the
        > resulting table.
        >
        > Keep in mind that:
        > * The result may contain errors because the libraries were analysed in
        > about one hour on average only.
        > * The data considers only the (actual or intended) data-model, i.e.
        > how the JSON syntax is interpreted. It does not give any details about
        > the quality of the implementations (which actually varied very
        > dramatically), its usability, or even whether it works at all.
        >
        > So here is the link:
        > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsfskDziXAR6dEpVUk9iT2RrODJ1amt1X0g5aWNRcEE&hl=en_GB
        >
        > If you find any problems in these entries, or have any comments please
        > write me. I apologise in advance to the authors of the mentioned
        > libraries if I have provided any incorrect information.
        >
        > Best,
        > Milo Sredkov
        >
      • Dave Gamble
        You ve inspired me to improve my Unicode support. UTF-16 surrogates now supported in cJSON. Not much I can do with embedded null characters since I /do/ use
        Message 3 of 3 , Oct 10, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          You've inspired me to improve my Unicode support. UTF-16 surrogates now
          supported in cJSON.
          Not much I can do with embedded null characters since I /do/ use char*...
          but at least I skip them now. :)

          Dave.

          On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Milo Sredkov <miloslav@...> wrote:

          > **
          >
          >
          > Hello, JSON Groups Members!
          >
          > As I already mentioned, I recently finished analysing some large
          > number of JSON libraries linked from json.org about the data models
          > (or meta-models, information models, etc.) they use or assume. These
          > analyses are done for the needs of the evaluation part of a JSON data
          > model paper I am currently working on, but I think that they may be
          > useful for someone else to. Here is what I have done:
          > * All 72 links from http://json.org/ in the sections C++, C, Java,
          > Python, Haskell, JavaScript, Ruby, C#, PHP, and Lisp were included � I
          > picked these 10 languages because they are the most discussed ones
          > according to http://langpop.com/ .
          > * For each of these libraries, a quick analysis was performed based
          > on its source code, documentation, unit-tests or actual hands-on
          > experiments, in attempt to determine what information model is implied
          > for JSON (most often, what the of parsing JSON is).
          > * For each of these 72 libraries (minus 9, which were skipped) the
          > information was summarised and reduced to several columns in the
          > resulting table.
          >
          > Keep in mind that:
          > * The result may contain errors because the libraries were analysed in
          > about one hour on average only.
          > * The data considers only the (actual or intended) data-model, i.e.
          > how the JSON syntax is interpreted. It does not give any details about
          > the quality of the implementations (which actually varied very
          > dramatically), its usability, or even whether it works at all.
          >
          > So here is the link:
          >
          > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsfskDziXAR6dEpVUk9iT2RrODJ1amt1X0g5aWNRcEE&hl=en_GB
          >
          > If you find any problems in these entries, or have any comments please
          > write me. I apologise in advance to the authors of the mentioned
          > libraries if I have provided any incorrect information.
          >
          > Best,
          > Milo Sredkov
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.