A new experimental Go API for JSON

Those numbers look similar to goccy. I used to use it in the past, even Kubernetes uses it as direct dependency, but the amount of issues have been stockpiling for quite some time so I no longer trust it.

So it seems both are operating at the edge of Go's capabilities.

Personally, I think JSON should be in Go's core and highly optimised simd c code and not in the Go's std library as standard Go code. As JSON is such an important part of the web nowadays, it deserves to be treated with more care.

IIRC, sonic does JIT, has inline assembly (github says 41%), and it's huge. There's no way you can audit it. If you don't need to squeeze every cpu cycle out of your json parser (and most of us don't; go wouldn't be the first choice for such performance anyway), I'd stick with a simpler implementation.

And Sonic with its "cutting edge" optimization is still slower than std Json on arm64 with basic use cases. It shows that JIT, simd, low level code comes at cost of maintenance for all platform.

https://github.com/bytedance/sonic/issues/785

first of all, that doesn't exercise JSON v2 at all, afaict

second of all, sonic apparently uses unsafe to (unsafe-ly) cast byte slices to strings, which of course is gonna be faster than doing things correctly, but is also of course incomparable to doing things correctly

like almost all benchmark data posted to hn -- unsound, ignore

A bad design doesn't invalidate the sentence you have quoted.

Over time, it became evident that the JSON package didn't meet the needs of its users, and the package has evolved as a result. The size of the evolution doesn't matter.

Well mostly I have seem people learn shortcomings of software by using or creating it and come up with new version when possible. In your case it seems v1 are perfect each time.

Go already has a JSON parser and serializer. It kind of resembles the JS api where you push some objects into JSON.stringify and it serializes them. Or you push some string and get an object (or string etc) from JSON.parse.

The types themselves have a way to customize their own JSON conversion code. You could have a struct serialize itself to a string, an array, do weird gymnastics, whatever. The JSON module calls these custom implementations when available.

The current way of doing it is shit though. If you want to customize serialization, you need to return a json string basically. Then the serializer has to check if you actually managed to return something sane. You also have no idea if there were some JSON options. Maybe there is an indentation setting or whatever. No, you return a byte array.

Deserialization is also shit because a) again, no options. b) the parser has to send you a byte array to parse. Hey, I have this JSON string, parse it. If that JSON string is 100MB long, too bad, it has to be read completely and allocated again for you to work on because you can only accept a byte array to parse.

New API fixes these. They provide a Decoder or Encoder to you. These carry any options from top. And they also can stream data. So you can serialize your 10GB array value by value while the underlying writer writes it into disk for example. Instead of allocating all on memory first, as the older API forces you to.

There are other improvements too but the post mainly focuses on these so thats what I got from it (I havent tried the new api btw, this is all from the post so maybe I’m wrong on some points)

Nah, the existing implementation is pretty decent, actually, but doesn’t address every use case and has some flaws that are hard or impossible to fix. But for lots of use cases it works great.

Now here’s a new implantation that addresses some of the architectural problems that made the old library structurally problematic for some use cases (streaming large JSON docs being the main one).

I had a back and forth with someone who really didn't want to change that behavior and their reasoning was that since you can create and provide an empty map or slice.. having the marshaler do that for you, and then also needing a way to disable that behavior, was unnecessary complexity.

how is a nil map not null? It certainly isn’t a zero-valued map, that would be {}.

Well those are different things, aren't they? Empty slice/map is different from nil. So it makes a lot of sense that nil = null and []string{} = [], and you have an option to use both. That being said, it starts to make less sense if you work with go where the API mostly treats it as equivalent (append, len, []). So that would be my guess how it ended up the way it did.

Also, now that nil map is an empty object, shouldn't that extend to every nil struct that doesn't have a custom marshaller? It would be an object if it wasn't nil after all...

Why shouldn't it be? The nil is null and empty array is an empty array, they are completely different objects.

That has its own downsides, though.

Both v1 packages continue work; both are maintained. They get security updates, and were both improved by implementing them on top of v2 to the extent possible without breaking their respective APIs.

More importantly: the Go authors remain responsible for both the v1 and v2 packages.

What most people want to avoid with a "batteries included standard library" (and few additional dependencies) is the debacle we had just today with NPM.

Well maintained packages, from a handful of reputable sources, with predictable release schedules, a responsive security team and well specified security process.

You can't get that with 100s of independently developed dependencies.

Wow, two whole times in 19 years? That sounds terrible.

Yes, we should definitely go with the Rust approach instead.

Anyway, I'd better get back to figuring out which crate am I meant to be using...

Two v2s in 15 years seems pretty good given the breadth of the stdlib.

I'm not sure how this is a problem, and I'm very sure that even in the presence of this "problem" it is far better for a language to have a batteries-included stdlib than to not

Fixed in 1976 by ML, followed up by Eiffel in 2005, but unfortunately yet to be made common.

Null and undefined are fine imho with a sort of empty/missing semantics (especially since you mostly just care to == them) I have bigger issues to how similar yet different it is to have an undefined key and a not-defined key, I would almost prefer if

    obj['key']=undefined

 was the same as 

    delete obj['key']

It may be because Go programs use gRPC more heavily than REST at Google.

You should read that, it's still relevant: https://seriot.ch/projects/parsing_json.html