gabs

Pros of fastjson

• Significantly faster JSON parsing and encoding
• Lower memory usage and fewer allocations
• Supports streaming JSON processing for large datasets

Cons of fastjson

• Less feature-rich API compared to gabs
• Requires more manual handling of JSON structures
• Limited support for modifying existing JSON objects

Code Comparison

gabs:

jsonObj, _ := gabs.ParseJSON([]byte(`{"name":"John","age":30}`))
name := jsonObj.Path("name").Data().(string)
jsonObj.Set(31, "age")

fastjson:

var p fastjson.Parser
v, _ := p.Parse(`{"name":"John","age":30}`)
name := string(v.GetStringBytes("name"))
v.Set("age", fastjson.MustParse("31"))

Both libraries provide JSON parsing and manipulation capabilities, but they differ in their approach and performance characteristics. gabs offers a more user-friendly API with convenient methods for accessing and modifying JSON data, while fastjson focuses on high-performance parsing and encoding at the cost of a slightly more complex API.

fastjson is particularly well-suited for applications that require fast processing of large JSON datasets or have strict performance requirements. On the other hand, gabs may be more appropriate for projects where ease of use and a rich feature set are prioritized over raw performance.

Pros of gjson

• Faster performance for parsing and retrieving JSON data
• More extensive query syntax for complex JSON operations
• Supports modifying JSON data with Get-Set-Get pattern

Cons of gjson

• Limited JSON creation capabilities compared to gabs
• Less intuitive for building JSON structures from scratch
• Steeper learning curve for advanced query syntax

Code Comparison

gabs example:

jsonObj := gabs.New()
jsonObj.Set(10, "foo", "bar", "baz")
jsonObj.Set(20, "foo", "bar", "qux")
fmt.Println(jsonObj.String())

gjson example:

json := `{"foo":{"bar":{"baz":10,"qux":20}}}`
value := gjson.Get(json, "foo.bar.baz")
fmt.Println(value.Int())

Both libraries offer JSON parsing and manipulation capabilities, but they have different strengths. gabs excels in creating and modifying JSON structures, while gjson focuses on fast parsing and querying of existing JSON data. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as performance needs, JSON creation vs. parsing, and the complexity of operations you need to perform on JSON data.

Pros of jsonparser

• Faster performance, especially for large JSON files
• Lower memory usage due to not creating intermediate objects
• Supports streaming JSON parsing

Cons of jsonparser

• Less intuitive API for complex operations
• Limited support for modifying JSON structures
• Requires more manual handling of data types

Code Comparison

jsonparser:

data := []byte(`{"name": "John", "age": 30}`)
name, err := jsonparser.GetString(data, "name")
age, err := jsonparser.GetInt(data, "age")

gabs:

jsonParsed, err := gabs.ParseJSON([]byte(`{"name": "John", "age": 30}`))
name := jsonParsed.Path("name").Data().(string)
age := jsonParsed.Path("age").Data().(float64)

Summary

jsonparser is optimized for performance and memory efficiency, making it ideal for processing large JSON files or high-throughput applications. It excels in scenarios where speed and resource conservation are crucial.

gabs offers a more user-friendly API for complex JSON manipulations and modifications. It's better suited for applications that require frequent JSON structure alterations or when ease of use is prioritized over raw performance.

Choose jsonparser for high-performance, read-heavy operations on large JSON datasets. Opt for gabs when working with smaller JSON structures or when frequent modifications and a more intuitive API are needed.

Pros of go-simplejson

• Simpler API with fewer methods, making it easier to learn and use
• More flexible for handling unknown JSON structures
• Better support for chaining operations

Cons of go-simplejson

• Less performant than gabs for large JSON documents
• Fewer advanced features and manipulation options
• Limited support for creating or modifying JSON structures

Code Comparison

go-simplejson:

js, _ := simplejson.NewJson([]byte(`{"name":"John","age":30}`))
name, _ := js.Get("name").String()
age, _ := js.Get("age").Int()

gabs:

jsonParsed, _ := gabs.ParseJSON([]byte(`{"name":"John","age":30}`))
name := jsonParsed.Path("name").Data().(string)
age := jsonParsed.Path("age").Data().(float64)

Both libraries provide ways to parse and access JSON data, but gabs offers more advanced features for manipulation and creation of JSON structures. go-simplejson is simpler to use and more flexible for handling unknown JSON structures, while gabs is more performant and feature-rich. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as performance needs, JSON manipulation complexity, and ease of use.

Pros of easyjson

• Generates code for faster JSON encoding/decoding, resulting in better performance
• Supports custom MarshalJSON/UnmarshalJSON methods for fine-grained control
• Integrates well with Go's standard encoding/json package

Cons of easyjson

• Requires code generation step, which adds complexity to the build process
• Less flexible for dynamic JSON manipulation compared to gabs
• Steeper learning curve for newcomers due to code generation approach

Code Comparison

easyjson:

//easyjson:json
type Person struct {
    Name string `json:"name"`
    Age  int    `json:"age"`
}

gabs:

jsonParsed, _ := gabs.ParseJSON([]byte(`{"name":"John","age":30}`))
name := jsonParsed.Path("name").Data().(string)
age := jsonParsed.Path("age").Data().(float64)

Summary

easyjson focuses on performance through code generation, making it ideal for projects with known JSON structures and high-performance requirements. gabs, on the other hand, offers more flexibility for dynamic JSON manipulation without code generation. Choose easyjson for speed and static typing, or gabs for ease of use and dynamic JSON handling.

Pros of json-iterator/go

• Significantly faster JSON parsing and serialization
• Drop-in replacement for the standard library's encoding/json
• Supports custom extensions and configurations

Cons of json-iterator/go

• Less intuitive for complex JSON manipulation
• Requires more setup for advanced use cases

Code Comparison

json-iterator/go:

import jsoniter "github.com/json-iterator/go"

var json = jsoniter.ConfigCompatibleWithStandardLibrary
data := json.Get(input, "users", 0, "name").ToString()

gabs:

import "github.com/Jeffail/gabs/v2"

jsonParsed, _ := gabs.ParseJSON([]byte(input))
data, _ := jsonParsed.Path("users.0.name").Data().(string)

Key Differences

• json-iterator/go focuses on performance and compatibility with the standard library
• gabs provides a more intuitive API for JSON manipulation and querying
• json-iterator/go is better suited for high-performance applications
• gabs is more convenient for complex JSON operations and data extraction

Use Cases

• Choose json-iterator/go for applications requiring high-speed JSON processing
• Opt for gabs when working with complex JSON structures and frequent data manipulation

Both libraries have their strengths, and the choice depends on specific project requirements and performance needs.