11–20 of 308 posts
Title correction: it's faster to parse and initialize using JSON than to parse and compile the code required to initialize Objects directly. If the code is already compiled, it's much faster to initialize in code. At least that's my understanding of the linked article.
I’m having flashbacks to the Java serialize vulnerabilities from a couple years ago.
ECMAScript and JSON do not have the same set of escape characters:
``` Note: It’s crucially important to post-process user-controlled input to escape any special character sequences, depending on the context. In this particular case, we’re injecting into a tag, so we must (also) escape </script, <script, and <!- -. ```
Not sure if I should end this comment with a /s or not.
Title correction: it's faster to parse and initialize using JSON than to parse and compile the code required to initialize Objects directly. If the code is already compiled, it's much faster to initialize in code. At least that's my understanding of the linked article.
Title correction: it's faster to parse and initialize using JSON than to parse and compile the code required to initialize Objects directly. If the code is already compiled, it's much faster to initialize in code. At least that's my understanding of the linked article.
I think your understanding is correct. The relevant quote: > As long as the JSON string is only evaluated once, the JSON.parse approach is much faster compared to the JavaScript object literal, especially for cold loads.
I'm thinking of compression libraries, or things like FlatBuffers.
Title correction: it's faster to parse and initialize using JSON than to parse and compile the code required to initialize Objects directly. If the code is already compiled, it's much faster to initialize in code. At least that's my understanding of the linked article.
So I guess we should "transpile" static objects into strings that we call with JSON.parse? Not sure if I should end this comment with a /s or not.