Research 140, 027's stage 2c measured: JSON read into a tree by recursive descent (aup's examples/json_tree.aup: value(d, i) -> Json, number giving the value and where it ends, each call's own let's lists, string's escapes joined by char(u), a depth-first walk passing items as values) against Python's reading walked so: JSONTestSuite's 95 y_ taken alike, no n_ taken, 2b's 6 i_ taken (a lone surrogate refused by char as encoding); 100,000 and 50,000 deep refused as memory (the frames fill the event's room, 0.2 s), 30,000 deep taken (past Python's json); 300 random documents alike; in make check (module_specs' digest now depth first, three paths); 142 lines against the same design's 105 in Python (json_rec.py; the bar missed: 24 lines of declarations, 23 of braces), 46 times cJSON's time and 1.6 times plain Python's (600 ns a byte, 248 Pure instructions; 71% in the steps, about 10% in calls, 66,000 calls a document, most of them small block fns like skip); characters against Python's ord in aup's check; probes: p5-chars compiles, p4-rec (a view calling itself) refused; instruction counts: the workloads' modules the same, batches within 0.001% of 2b (BFS -0.21%), the executor alone -0.001% to +0.30%, the bank's queries -0.30% to +0.11% (four runs each; bar 1%); json_rec_time.c (cJSON, a depth-first digest compared first); CHECKPOINT's direction row through 2c

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions