I'm having a lot of difficulty reading this and I'm not sure if it's because of the style or the terminology.

I don't mean to be patronizing but did the formatting go wrong here?

I don't think so, it's just that bad of a comment.

Hmm... Yep, also a tad bit off the bat but I just went w/ the flow state. More so, I've only played Arcade games since I got that Sinden Pistol on my B'Day. I was also a DDR junkie once. Historically, I did & still do a lot of sys admin stuff but not 'professionally' any more.

Maybe I should setup my sig...

>Dude...

Please don't assume... Forget it!

Not all programming languages are equal. Some are easier to review, some are faster, different ecosystems, different target architectures, many reasons.

That's like someone saying "What is the purpose of x64 in the new age of C?" back in 1999.

Why do you think diataxis and the google guidance is outdated now?

Why not? “Customer experience” is arguable, but most design documents I’ve seen involve the others.

Now who's being a Veruca Salt? Everyone in this thread is clearly literally talking about the message.

In the spirit of this forum and at the risk of being very cringe, I’d guess that’s like being the founder of a company versus being one of the early employees :)

What should? Presumably if it were easy and solved their most visible problem then they would have done it already?

Maybe they just suck.

That's what the person you replied to is talking about, and they're right. Putting aside the final byte size (where protobuf also wins), protobuf is faster at both encoding and decoding than json. There are numerous benchmarks you can find that show this.

The advantages of json are not related to performance.

No, protobuf is not faster, not on Python, because google's implementation is poor. Python is the #1 language in the world right now. Don't use protobuf.

That's not the lesson I'm taking away from this. Imagine how much faster the code would be if you didn't use Python.

doesn't seem universally true, https://github.com/protobufjs/protobuf.js/issues/2114#issue-...

If you're writing JS you cannot beat JSON.parse, because you're running the most optimized C++ implementation of JSON which will outcompete any decoder written JS itself.

Which is not a very generalizable situation.

Ok but that's the point. You are just explaining why the 'protobuf is faster' claim is generally false.

It is generally correct. When both implementations are completely in the same language Protobuf will win. Instead of a pure-JS implementation one can also make a FFI module for Protobuf.

The comparison that's being made is equivalent to implementing quick sort in Python and bubble sort in C++ and then declaring bubble sort is the better alternative.

Anyone with a healthy understading of computer science and programming experience will not make bullshit claims like that.

You say 'generally correct', but then to make it correct you have to make a bunch of specific constraints. That's not general. I'm comparing the FFI using library in python to the json library in python, and json is faster for me. I showed how in the post. You are welcome to find my mistake.

I was the grandparent reply and I meant to only carve out "you cannot write anything in JavaScript faster than anything written in tuned C, and json.parse is the latter".

Which link were you comparing FFI in python to json in python? The link I see seems to be about pure JavaScript language Protobuf impls vs json.parse?

I get what you’re saying, but I wouldn’t say easy is the opposite of challenging. As a quick example, I would surely find a day job of manual labor harder and significantly less enjoyable than a day job of software engineering challenges.

(And please note that I do not mean to imply that there are no challenges in manual labor or that software engineering is more important.)

Just because you can mad-lib something that makes sense at the surface doesn’t make it insightful.

How are plungers comparable to LLMs?

They are both products with multiple sellers competing on price. If one seller raises their price, people can switch to the other seller.

You can't only look at how much "value" the buyer gets from the product. That's the mistake made by the original comment.

You might ask "why don't all of the LLM providers just raise their prices?". That's called price fixing or collusion, and is generally illegal.