From 452131cd0f9e2f8b91c80e17d38c26a0dbe15762 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "psyc://psyced.org/~lynX" <@> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 21:59:09 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] out of the cave --- bench/benchmark.org | 12 +++++------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/bench/benchmark.org b/bench/benchmark.org index a3b439d..2e6c9a5 100644 --- a/bench/benchmark.org +++ b/bench/benchmark.org @@ -166,6 +166,11 @@ not performed. | / | < | > | < | > | < | | > | | | | | | | | | | +In each case we compared performance of parsing and re-rendering +these messages, but consider also that the applicative processing +of an XML DOM tree is more complicated than just accessing +certain elements in a JSON data structure or PSYC variable mapping. + * Explanations As you can tell the PSYC data format outpaces its rivals in all circumstances. @@ -203,13 +208,6 @@ a bullet proof parser. PSYC is easy to render and parse yourself for simple tasks, as long as the body does not contain "\n|\n" and your variables do not contain newlines. -* Caveats - -In every case we'll compare performance of parsing and re-rendering -these messages, but consider also that the applicative processing -of an XML DOM tree is more complicated than just accessing -certain elements in a JSON data structure or PSYC variable mapping. - * Conclusions After all it is up to you to find out which format fulfils your