Home Original page

Forking simplejson

Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu
Fri Oct 28 16:52:43 EDT 2011 
On 10/28/2011 1:20 PM, Nathan Rice wrote:
> Just a random note, I actually set about the task of re-implementing a
> json encoder which can be subclassed, is highly extensible, and uses
> (mostly) sane coding techniques (those of you who've looked at
> simplejson's code will know why this is a good thing).  So far
> preliminary tests show the json only subclass of the main encoder
> basically tied in performance with the python implementation of
> simplejson.  The C version of simplejson does turn in a performance
> about 12x faster, but that's apples to oranges.  The design of the
> encoder would also make a XML serializer pretty straight forward to
> implement as well (not that I care about XML, *blech*).
>
> I'm torn between just moving on to some of my other coding tasks and
> putting some time into this to make it pass the simplejson/std lib
> json tests.  I really do think the standard lib json encoder is bad

Python is the result of people who thought *something* was 'bad'

> and I would like to see an alternative in there

and volunteered the effort to make something better.

 > but I'm hesitant to get involved.

As someone who is involved and tries to encourage others, I am curious why.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy
More information about the Python-list mailing list