Just for fun, how often do regular-sized companies that deal in regular-sized traffic need Protobuf to accomplish their goals in the first place, compared to JSON or even XML with basic string marshalling?
Replacing Protobuf with Rust
21–30 of 135 posts
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#22FlatBuffers are already faster than that. But that's not why we choose Protobuf. It's because a megacorp maintains it.
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#23"5 times faster" reminds me of Cap'n Proto's claim: in benchmarks, Cap’n Proto is INFINITY TIMES faster than Protocol Buffers: https://capnproto.org/
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#24I vaguely recall that there's a Rust macro to automatically convert recursive functions to iterative. But I would just increase the stack size limit if it ever becomes a problem. As far as I know the only reason it is so small is because of address space exhaustion which only affects 32-bit systems.
> I vaguely recall that there's a Rust macro to automatically convert recursive functions to iterative. Isn't that just TCO or similar? Usually a part of the compiler/core of the language itself, AFAIK.
So I think there's value in providing it as an explicit opt-in; that way when you're reading the code, you know to account for it when you're looking at backtraces.
Additionally, if you're relying on TCO it might be a major bug if the compiler isn't able to apply it - and optimizations that aren't applied are normally invisible. This might mean you could get an error if you're expecting TCO and you or the compiler screwed something up.
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#25Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#26tldr: they replaced using protobuf as the type system across language boundaries for FFI with true FFI
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#27Just for fun, how often do regular-sized companies that deal in regular-sized traffic need Protobuf to accomplish their goals in the first place, compared to JSON or even XML with basic string marshalling?
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#28"5 times faster" reminds me of Cap'n Proto's claim: in benchmarks, Cap’n Proto is INFINITY TIMES faster than Protocol Buffers: https://capnproto.org/
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#29Just for fun, how often do regular-sized companies that deal in regular-sized traffic need Protobuf to accomplish their goals in the first place, compared to JSON or even XML with basic string marshalling?
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#30Just for fun, how often do regular-sized companies that deal in regular-sized traffic need Protobuf to accomplish their goals in the first place, compared to JSON or even XML with basic string marshalling?