Compile-time JSON deserialization in C++(medium.com)
medium.com
Compile-time JSON deserialization in C++
https://medium.com/@abdulgh/compile-time-json-deserialization-in-c-1e3d41a73628
88 comments
that forEachProp function... it brings back nightmares of when, before variadics, we used to macro generate up-to N-arity functions (with all the const/non-const permutations(.
Now I use the same trick in our code base to generically hash aggregates, but I limit it to 4 fields for sanity.
Now I use the same trick in our code base to generically hash aggregates, but I limit it to 4 fields for sanity.
Holy crap; that's pretty epic. Did you come up with that yourself?
I am afraid of the compile-time cost.
For this kind of things I tend to prefer using a simpler program (written in anything you like) to generate C or C++ instead of having the compile do the same thing much slowly.
Meta programming can be good, but it is even better done with an actual meta program, IMO.
For this kind of things I tend to prefer using a simpler program (written in anything you like) to generate C or C++ instead of having the compile do the same thing much slowly.
Meta programming can be good, but it is even better done with an actual meta program, IMO.
> I am afraid of the compile-time cost.
Even though compilation time is the bane of C++, I think this concern regarding this specific usage is grossly overblown. I'm going to tell you why.
With incremental builds you only rebuild whatever has changed in your project. Embedding JSON documents in a C++ app is the kind of thing that is rarely touched, specially if all your requirements are met by serializing docs at compile time. This means that this deserialization will only be rarely rebuilt, and only under two scenarios: full rebuild, and touching the file.
As far as full rebuilds go, there is no scenario where deserializing JSON represents a relevant task in your build tree.
As for touching the file, if for some weird and unbelievable reason the build step for the JSON deserialization component is deemed too computationally expensive, it's trivial to move this specific component into a subproject that's built independently. This means that the full cost of an incremental build boils down to a) rebuilding your tiny JSON deserialization subproject, b) linking. Step a) runs happily in parallel with any other build task, thus it's impact is meaningless.
To read more on the topic, google for "horizontal architecture", a concept popularized by the book "Large-Scale C++: Process and Architecture, Volume 1" By John Lakos.
Mountain out of a molehill.
Even though compilation time is the bane of C++, I think this concern regarding this specific usage is grossly overblown. I'm going to tell you why.
With incremental builds you only rebuild whatever has changed in your project. Embedding JSON documents in a C++ app is the kind of thing that is rarely touched, specially if all your requirements are met by serializing docs at compile time. This means that this deserialization will only be rarely rebuilt, and only under two scenarios: full rebuild, and touching the file.
As far as full rebuilds go, there is no scenario where deserializing JSON represents a relevant task in your build tree.
As for touching the file, if for some weird and unbelievable reason the build step for the JSON deserialization component is deemed too computationally expensive, it's trivial to move this specific component into a subproject that's built independently. This means that the full cost of an incremental build boils down to a) rebuilding your tiny JSON deserialization subproject, b) linking. Step a) runs happily in parallel with any other build task, thus it's impact is meaningless.
To read more on the topic, google for "horizontal architecture", a concept popularized by the book "Large-Scale C++: Process and Architecture, Volume 1" By John Lakos.
Mountain out of a molehill.
There is another scenario where this is an issue: if this code ends up in a header which is included in a lot of places. You might say "that's dumb, don't do that", but there is a real tendency in C++ for things to migrate into headers (because they're templates, because you want them to be aggressively inlined, for convenience, whatever), and then headers get included into other headers, then without knowing it you suddenly have disastrous compile times.
Like, for this particular example, you might start out with a header that looks like:
Then somebody comes around and says "we'd like to reuse the parsing logic to get SomeOtherData as well" and your nice, one-line header becomes
It takes more discipline than you think across a team to prevent this from happening, mostly because a lot of people don't take "this takes too long to compile" as a serious complaint if it involves any kind of other trade-off.
Like, for this particular example, you might start out with a header that looks like:
SomeData get_data_from_json(std::string_view json);
Then somebody comes around and says "we'd like to reuse the parsing logic to get SomeOtherData as well" and your nice, one-line header becomes
template<typename Ret>
Ret get_data_from_json(std::string_view json) {
// .. a gazillion lines of template-heavy code
}
It takes more discipline than you think across a team to prevent this from happening, mostly because a lot of people don't take "this takes too long to compile" as a serious complaint if it involves any kind of other trade-off.
> There is another scenario where this is an issue: if this code ends up in a header which is included in a lot of places.
This is all on itself a sign that your project is fundamentally broken, but this is already covered by scenario b) incremental builds.
Even if for some reason you resist the urge of following best practices and not create your own problems, there are a myriad of techniques to limit the impact of touching a single file in your builds. Using a facade class to move your serialized JSON to an implementation detail of a class is perhaps the lowest effort one, but the textbook example would be something like a PIMPL.
The main problem with the build time of C++ projects are not the build times per se but clueless developers, who are oblivious to the problem domain, fumbling basic things and ending up creating their own problems. Once one of them stops to ask themself why is the project taking so much time to build, more often than not you find yourself a few commits away from dropping build times to a fraction of the cost. Even onboarding something like ccache requires no more than setting an environment variable.
This is all on itself a sign that your project is fundamentally broken, but this is already covered by scenario b) incremental builds.
Even if for some reason you resist the urge of following best practices and not create your own problems, there are a myriad of techniques to limit the impact of touching a single file in your builds. Using a facade class to move your serialized JSON to an implementation detail of a class is perhaps the lowest effort one, but the textbook example would be something like a PIMPL.
The main problem with the build time of C++ projects are not the build times per se but clueless developers, who are oblivious to the problem domain, fumbling basic things and ending up creating their own problems. Once one of them stops to ask themself why is the project taking so much time to build, more often than not you find yourself a few commits away from dropping build times to a fraction of the cost. Even onboarding something like ccache requires no more than setting an environment variable.
Fundamentally broken, or waiting for modules to become a thing? I tried to use https://github.com/mjspncr/lzz3ᵃ for a few years but it became impractical to me to fiddle with tooling.
a: You don't have source file and header file, you put everything in one file and lzz sorts it out during build.
a: You don't have source file and header file, you put everything in one file and lzz sorts it out during build.
> CommonUtils.hpp
That's the root cause of the slow build. That file is likely to be depended on by way too many other files, triggering massive rebuilds when unrelated code is modified. The headers should be as granular as possible. Breaking up the generic utils file into many specific files will help contain the damage whenever any given file is changed.
I wish it was possible to track source code dependencies at the function level.
That's the root cause of the slow build. That file is likely to be depended on by way too many other files, triggering massive rebuilds when unrelated code is modified. The headers should be as granular as possible. Breaking up the generic utils file into many specific files will help contain the damage whenever any given file is changed.
I wish it was possible to track source code dependencies at the function level.
It's not just that. If ALL that was in the header was the function prototype, that adds basically nothing to the compile time. The problem is when you have significant codegen and parsing in headers, like you do with templates and class definitions and stuff like that.
Like, most C projects import enormous headers with gazillions of function prototypes without having a particularly measurable impact on compile times (compile times in C is quite good, in fact!)
Like, most C projects import enormous headers with gazillions of function prototypes without having a particularly measurable impact on compile times (compile times in C is quite good, in fact!)
Right. For a second I forgot this was a C++ discussion.
Breaking up the headers into granular files should still help reduce the amount of instatiation that's going on at compile time provided there isn't much overlap in the headers included by the source files.
Breaking up the headers into granular files should still help reduce the amount of instatiation that's going on at compile time provided there isn't much overlap in the headers included by the source files.
GCC, LLVM, and MSVC++ all support precompiled headers. How often is a unique and minimal set of #includes worth the extra cost?
That helps reduce the cost of parsing the headers but doesn't eliminate the issue. Changing a header triggers a rebuild of everything that includes it. If the header is ubiquitous, nearly everything gets rebuilt.
We want to reduce the set of rebuilt files to a minimum. That means separate headers so that files that use A don't need to be recompiled because B changed and A and B are defined in the same header.
Taking this logic to the extreme would lead to one file per type or function. I've read a lot of code that's structured this way and it works well. Editing lots of small files is a little annoying though. In the end it's a tradeoff.
We want to reduce the set of rebuilt files to a minimum. That means separate headers so that files that use A don't need to be recompiled because B changed and A and B are defined in the same header.
Taking this logic to the extreme would lead to one file per type or function. I've read a lot of code that's structured this way and it works well. Editing lots of small files is a little annoying though. In the end it's a tradeoff.
Brings to mind the old story about a JSON DSL
https://thedailywtf.com/articles/the-inner-json-effect
https://thedailywtf.com/articles/the-inner-json-effect
Is this real? It can't be real. Nobody can be this stupid. But then again it takes a special kind of person who doesn't understand satire to actually do something like that. Somebody, where they would say "we trained him wrong on purpose as a kind of a joke".
Nah I've seen this happen IRL. In this system "configuration" was read out of tables in a word document, processed via XSLT transformations and eventually it would spit out a huuuuge single C# document (recent "improvement", before that it was some obscure licenced language). Builds happened overnight because they took so long, and there was no way to test something locally.
The "advantage" of this system was that there was no need for programmers, as there was "no code", just configuration!. This was supposed to allowed "domain experts" without programming knowledge to work with the system. However a month long training by the creator of the system was still required, as he had to explain which of the 7 boolean types you should use if you wanted to add a new column 0.o (for those who want to know, there was true/false, 0/1, yes/no, true/false/unknown, true/false rendered as a toggle, true/false rendered as a checkbox...)
The "advantage" of this system was that there was no need for programmers, as there was "no code", just configuration!. This was supposed to allowed "domain experts" without programming knowledge to work with the system. However a month long training by the creator of the system was still required, as he had to explain which of the 7 boolean types you should use if you wanted to add a new column 0.o (for those who want to know, there was true/false, 0/1, yes/no, true/false/unknown, true/false rendered as a toggle, true/false rendered as a checkbox...)
> In this system "configuration" was read out of tables in a word document, processed via XSLT transformations and eventually it would spit out a huuuuge single C# document
This is hilarious! It takes a special kind of ignorance to come up with a solution like this.
This is hilarious! It takes a special kind of ignorance to come up with a solution like this.
It has to be satire because of Tom's complete overreaction and the fact that comments are actually one of the easiest things to handle when building a lexer (usually, you just discard them). Eval'ing them makes no sense.
That said, I suppose stranger things have happened.
That said, I suppose stranger things have happened.
> Is this real? It can't be real. Nobody can be this stupid.
Having worked in an org with an official in-house genius who was terribly tight with a tech-illiterate leadership and faked his way into his status, I can't really tell. Throwing people under the bus, blaming the world around them for problems created by your brittle code, shunning best practices in favor of finger-pointing... This happens in small shops more often than we'd like believe.
As the saying goes, truth is stranger than fiction. Because fiction is expected to make sense.
Having worked in an org with an official in-house genius who was terribly tight with a tech-illiterate leadership and faked his way into his status, I can't really tell. Throwing people under the bus, blaming the world around them for problems created by your brittle code, shunning best practices in favor of finger-pointing... This happens in small shops more often than we'd like believe.
As the saying goes, truth is stranger than fiction. Because fiction is expected to make sense.
It's the inner platform effect. When I was young I fell into the same trap. I invented a flexible database schema where I put each field into a database row with some metadata describing the field. But that's nonsense. Just use what the database provides.
There's a Wikipedia page about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner-platform_effect
A variant of it is: Any sufficiently complicated program contains a slow and buggy implementation of half of Lisp. That's the Greenspun's tenth rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun%27s_tenth_rule
This applies to the kernel as well to put it bluntly and a bit ironically: eBPF, but this shouldn't be understood that I mean that eBPF is not well thought out! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBPF
There's a Wikipedia page about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner-platform_effect
A variant of it is: Any sufficiently complicated program contains a slow and buggy implementation of half of Lisp. That's the Greenspun's tenth rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun%27s_tenth_rule
This applies to the kernel as well to put it bluntly and a bit ironically: eBPF, but this shouldn't be understood that I mean that eBPF is not well thought out! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBPF
> flexible database schema where I put each field into a database row with some metadata describing the field.
I imagine everyone has invented this scheme at one point or another. It's so obvious, when you think about it!
I imagine everyone has invented this scheme at one point or another. It's so obvious, when you think about it!
Any sufficiently advanced tagging system turns into dynamic typing for databases.
I'm _pretty_ sure it's satire, but the fact that you and I can't say for sure is perhaps illustrative of the failure.
I've encountered this pattern several times over my career. Some very smart programmer decides that for "reasons" the standard way to do something is "bad". (Usually "performance" or "bloat" are words bandied around.) They then happily architect a new system to replace the "old thing". Of course the new thing is completely undocumented (because genius programmers don't waste their time writing docs).
If you're _lucky_ the programmer then spends his whole career there maintaining the thing. If you're lucky the whole thing becomes obsolete and discarded before he retires. Hint: You're not lucky.
So what you are left with is this big ball of smoosh, with no documentation, that no-one can figure-out, much less understand. Oh he designed this before multi-core processors were a thing? Before we switched to a preemtive threaded OS? Well no, none of the code is thread-safe, and he's left the company so we need someone to "just update it".
There are reasons standard libraries exist. There are usually reasons they're a bit slower than hand-coding specific cases in assembler. There are reasons why they are "bloated" with support for lots of edge-cases. (like comments).
When some really smart person starts talking about how it's all rubbish, be afraid. Be very afraid.
I've encountered this pattern several times over my career. Some very smart programmer decides that for "reasons" the standard way to do something is "bad". (Usually "performance" or "bloat" are words bandied around.) They then happily architect a new system to replace the "old thing". Of course the new thing is completely undocumented (because genius programmers don't waste their time writing docs).
If you're _lucky_ the programmer then spends his whole career there maintaining the thing. If you're lucky the whole thing becomes obsolete and discarded before he retires. Hint: You're not lucky.
So what you are left with is this big ball of smoosh, with no documentation, that no-one can figure-out, much less understand. Oh he designed this before multi-core processors were a thing? Before we switched to a preemtive threaded OS? Well no, none of the code is thread-safe, and he's left the company so we need someone to "just update it".
There are reasons standard libraries exist. There are usually reasons they're a bit slower than hand-coding specific cases in assembler. There are reasons why they are "bloated" with support for lots of edge-cases. (like comments).
When some really smart person starts talking about how it's all rubbish, be afraid. Be very afraid.
> There are reasons standard libraries exist
That right there. Before there is a standard lib for something if there are N people coding something up there could be N! ways to do something.
If you do not know about a standard lib or it doesn't exist there will be some wild code written.
It is when that standard library shows up you should at least consider just throwing your bespoke code away. Not always but should at least be considered. I personally have replaced thousands of lines of code and modules I wrote just by switching them to some existing library. The upside is if that standard lib does not do what I want I have enough knowledge to either bend it around so it does or I can fix it up (or put my bespoke code back). I know I am not that smart, but I know enough that my code is probably brittle and probably should be thrown away.
Also watch out for some 'standard libs'. Some of them are little more than someone's hobby project and have all the exact same issues you are trying to avoid. One project I worked on some guy had written a grid control. He was charging something like 10k a year to use it. But it was just one guy and I quote "i just touch it once or twice a year and drink margaritas on the beach". It was a bug prone riddled mess we spent a non insignificant amount of time fixing. We bought another one for a onetime fee of 500 bucks and it was wildly faster and more importantly had near zero bugs and a turn around time of 1-2 days if we found one.
That right there. Before there is a standard lib for something if there are N people coding something up there could be N! ways to do something.
If you do not know about a standard lib or it doesn't exist there will be some wild code written.
It is when that standard library shows up you should at least consider just throwing your bespoke code away. Not always but should at least be considered. I personally have replaced thousands of lines of code and modules I wrote just by switching them to some existing library. The upside is if that standard lib does not do what I want I have enough knowledge to either bend it around so it does or I can fix it up (or put my bespoke code back). I know I am not that smart, but I know enough that my code is probably brittle and probably should be thrown away.
Also watch out for some 'standard libs'. Some of them are little more than someone's hobby project and have all the exact same issues you are trying to avoid. One project I worked on some guy had written a grid control. He was charging something like 10k a year to use it. But it was just one guy and I quote "i just touch it once or twice a year and drink margaritas on the beach". It was a bug prone riddled mess we spent a non insignificant amount of time fixing. We bought another one for a onetime fee of 500 bucks and it was wildly faster and more importantly had near zero bugs and a turn around time of 1-2 days if we found one.
> generate C or C++ instead of having the compile do the same thing much slowly
That's a wild-assed guess. A JSON decoder right in the compiler could easily be faster than generation involving extra tool invocations and multiple passes.
Also, if you use ten code generators for ten different features in a pipeline instead of ten compile-time things built into the language, will that still be faster? What if most files use just use one one or two features? You have to pass them through all the generators just in case; each generator decides whether the file contains anything that it knows how to expand.
That's a wild-assed guess. A JSON decoder right in the compiler could easily be faster than generation involving extra tool invocations and multiple passes.
Also, if you use ten code generators for ten different features in a pipeline instead of ten compile-time things built into the language, will that still be faster? What if most files use just use one one or two features? You have to pass them through all the generators just in case; each generator decides whether the file contains anything that it knows how to expand.
> You have to pass them through all the generators just in case; each generator decides whether the file contains anything that it knows how to expand.
The C# approach for this is that code generators operate as compiler plugins (and therefore also IDE plugins, so if you report an error from the code generator it goes with all the other compile errors). There is a two-pass approach where your plugin gets to scan the syntax tree quickly for "might be relevant" and then another go later; the first pass is cached.
A limitation of the plugin approach is that your codegen code itself has to be in a separate project that gets compiled first.
An argument in favor of separate-codegen is that if it breaks you can inspect the intermediate code, and indeed do things like breakpoints, logging and inspection in the code generator itself. The C++ approach seems like it might be hard to debug in some situations.
The C# approach for this is that code generators operate as compiler plugins (and therefore also IDE plugins, so if you report an error from the code generator it goes with all the other compile errors). There is a two-pass approach where your plugin gets to scan the syntax tree quickly for "might be relevant" and then another go later; the first pass is cached.
A limitation of the plugin approach is that your codegen code itself has to be in a separate project that gets compiled first.
An argument in favor of separate-codegen is that if it breaks you can inspect the intermediate code, and indeed do things like breakpoints, logging and inspection in the code generator itself. The C++ approach seems like it might be hard to debug in some situations.
> A JSON decoder right in the compiler could easily be faster than generation involving extra tool invocations and multiple passes.
It also can easily be slower: C++ templates are not exactly known for their blazingly fast compilation speed. Besides, the program they encode in this case is effectively being interpreted by the C++ compiler which, I suppose, is not really optimized for that: it's still mostly oriented around emitting optimized machine code.
It also can easily be slower: C++ templates are not exactly known for their blazingly fast compilation speed. Besides, the program they encode in this case is effectively being interpreted by the C++ compiler which, I suppose, is not really optimized for that: it's still mostly oriented around emitting optimized machine code.
> C++ templates are not exactly known for their blazingly fast compilation speed.
Compared to what alternative that does the same thing, in C++?
Modern C++ compilers, as such, are slow as molasses, on multi-GHz hardware with huge L1 and L2 caches, whether your code uses templates or not.
Compared to what alternative that does the same thing, in C++?
Modern C++ compilers, as such, are slow as molasses, on multi-GHz hardware with huge L1 and L2 caches, whether your code uses templates or not.
The alternative would be to run the JSON through e.g. jq/sed and make it dump out a chunk of C++ that would create an object with proper fields and subobjects. This C++ code will have about zero template chicanery; instead, it would just call constexpr constructors which, I imagine, would be entirely boring — this C++ code will be compiled much faster.
I'm not taking sides but I don't think a code-gen tool necessitates re-scanning the entire codebase every compile. gRPC would be a good example.
Well not every compile. Obviously, incremental compiles (thanks to a tool like make) notice that the generated code is still newer than the inputs.
Obviously, you have files that are not generated. They don't need any gen tool.
That's a disadvantage. If you want to start using JSON at compile time in a file, and the technology for that is a code generator, you have to move that file to a different category, perhaps by changing its suffix, and possibly indicate it somewhere in the build system as one of the sources needing the json generator. Whereas if it's in the language, you just do it in your .cpp file and that's it.
Token based macro preprocessors and code generators are simply not defensible in the face of structural macro systems and compile-time evaluation. They are just something you use when you don't have the latter. You can use code generators and preprocessors with languages that don't have anything built in, and which are resistant to change (will not support any decent metaprogramming in the foreseeable future).
Obviously, you have files that are not generated. They don't need any gen tool.
That's a disadvantage. If you want to start using JSON at compile time in a file, and the technology for that is a code generator, you have to move that file to a different category, perhaps by changing its suffix, and possibly indicate it somewhere in the build system as one of the sources needing the json generator. Whereas if it's in the language, you just do it in your .cpp file and that's it.
Token based macro preprocessors and code generators are simply not defensible in the face of structural macro systems and compile-time evaluation. They are just something you use when you don't have the latter. You can use code generators and preprocessors with languages that don't have anything built in, and which are resistant to change (will not support any decent metaprogramming in the foreseeable future).
Yes, I agree. I don't see much practical use in this. I was just surprised how (relatively) straightforwards this is to do, and thought it was more cool than useful
Often I also find the opposite problem ... sure, you can do some stuff in (c++) metaprogramming, but can you (at compile time) generate a JSON/XML/YAML file that can be fed to some other part of the system?
The opposite 'toString' problem seems harder - I didn't try, but it should be possible now that std::string is constexpr.
I don't think you could parse it with, say, a class that has a std::string member (because of the transience restriction), but perhaps you can use lambdas that capture that string by reference, and call each other as appropriate?
As for exporting that as some sort of compiler artefact for use elsewhere, I am not sure how you would do that...
I don't think you could parse it with, say, a class that has a std::string member (because of the transience restriction), but perhaps you can use lambdas that capture that string by reference, and call each other as appropriate?
As for exporting that as some sort of compiler artefact for use elsewhere, I am not sure how you would do that...
> Yes, I agree. I don't see much practical use in this.
Me too. The best example I can come up with is loading test data in automated tests, but even then I wouldn't use this sort of approach.
Me too. The best example I can come up with is loading test data in automated tests, but even then I wouldn't use this sort of approach.
I like how code generation is typically done in Kotlin using KSP. Here you write your code generator as a plugin to the compiler, so you have the full expressivity of any JVM language you like. It also operates on the parsed and resolved AST, so you can analyze even derived types. It also allows code generators to run on code which has type errors or even fails to resolve some symbols which is very useful when you generate code from class annotations and then proceed to use the generated code later in the same file.
Another advantage of using KSP is that it also handles caching for you and will avoid running code generators again if the output already exists.
Another advantage of using KSP is that it also handles caching for you and will avoid running code generators again if the output already exists.
> I am afraid of the compile-time cost.
Still better than Rust /s
Still better than Rust /s
Hello! I wrote this short blog post about using pattern-matching-like template metaprogramming to deserialize JSON at build time - please let me know what you think (especially if you see improvements)
As someone who used to have to do this sort of compile-time stuff with previous versions of the standard, I'm jealous of how much more can be done now that I don't have to.
If you're looking for an interesting follow-up project, here's something I had to do once that's now become much easier: compute a compile-time hash of the compilation for the current translation unit, e.g. __BASE_FILE__ hashed together with __TIMESTAMP__ or the equivalents for each platform.
This allows you to dynamically invalidate on-disk caches and trigger new-build tripwires based on ongoing revisions. Development and release builds are handled identically: if source file X handles a cache and X was recompiled, discard the cache.
If you're looking for an interesting follow-up project, here's something I had to do once that's now become much easier: compute a compile-time hash of the compilation for the current translation unit, e.g. __BASE_FILE__ hashed together with __TIMESTAMP__ or the equivalents for each platform.
This allows you to dynamically invalidate on-disk caches and trigger new-build tripwires based on ongoing revisions. Development and release builds are handled identically: if source file X handles a cache and X was recompiled, discard the cache.
Thanks for the idea! Yes constexpr std::vector feels like cheating
It's cute and neat to be able to do it 100% constexpr, however as you mention the indexers feels a tad inelegant.
I've written 2 iterations of a reflection library where you needed to annotate structs slightly with an ugly macro but once done you could just do: Message msg; if (parse_json(str,msg)) { ..process msg struct.. }
The previous iterations were for C++11 and C++17 but it seems that with C++20 features you don't even seem to need the macro uglyness so I personally think libraries need to move in the direction of plain old structs.
I've written 2 iterations of a reflection library where you needed to annotate structs slightly with an ugly macro but once done you could just do: Message msg; if (parse_json(str,msg)) { ..process msg struct.. }
The previous iterations were for C++11 and C++17 but it seems that with C++20 features you don't even seem to need the macro uglyness so I personally think libraries need to move in the direction of plain old structs.
I recently actually tried to do a very similar thing, although a bit tighter in scope. What stopped me what that actually deserializing floating points cannot currently be done at compile time; the only utility available to do so is `from_chars` and it is only constexpr for ints.
I did not see any mention of this in the post; so are you actually simply extracting the string versions of the numbers, without verifying nor deserializing them?
I did not see any mention of this in the post; so are you actually simply extracting the string versions of the numbers, without verifying nor deserializing them?
I was able to do the primitive
long double result = 0.0;
while (...) {
in a constexpr function with no problem :)
long double result = 0.0;
while (...) {
if (json[head] == '.') ...
result *= 10; result += json[head] - '0';
in a constexpr function with no problem :)
The problem with this is that it will not actually parse double in IEEE 754, as you will accumulate inaccuracies at every step of the loop. In theory, when parsing a float, you are supposed to return the floating point that is closest to the original string number. Your code will not do that. Even if you accept the inaccuracy, if you for some reason load the JSON using a runtime library, you'll get different numbers and consequently and result that depend on those numbers. For my use-case this was not acceptable unfortunately..
Yes, very true. I noticed that even already at 3dp the floats start to compare unequal. The long double helped but it's not really.
I googled and found two examples of constexpr float parsing repositories, but from the sounds of things, you understand this problem better than I and will have seen them already
I googled and found two examples of constexpr float parsing repositories, but from the sounds of things, you understand this problem better than I and will have seen them already
How about floats in scientific notation?
You can do something similar, no? std::pow is not constexpr (most float stuff is not, presumably due to floating point state) but you can implement 10^x anyway
The concept reminds me of F#'s "Type Providers" [1].
In terms of the implementation ... I feel like C++ is best when used in an "orthodox style" and minimizing the use of templates as much as possible.
--
1: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/tutorials/ty...
In terms of the implementation ... I feel like C++ is best when used in an "orthodox style" and minimizing the use of templates as much as possible.
--
1: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/tutorials/ty...
My experience with template meta-programming: it is hardly ever useful, but on those rare occasions when it is, it is magical!
Could this be leveraged to emit a parser that is specialized for the provided type that can be used at runtime? Afaik .NET does something like that using code generators.
The advantage being that the parser is tailored to the specific type that is deserialized and it writes directly to the struct's fields instead of going through some dictionary.
The advantage being that the parser is tailored to the specific type that is deserialized and it writes directly to the struct's fields instead of going through some dictionary.
This lib does something like that:
https://github.com/beached/daw_json_link
https://github.com/beached/daw_json_link
It seems that you have to maintain hand-coded mappings for each type. Maybe this could be solved by using C++23's compile-time reflections.
Yes, the nonconstexpr version does just that, unless I misunderstood your question. See also boost::spirit for a 'big' version of this
Could you use something like `template <StringLiteral str> constexpr inline Key<str> key;`? Then you could write `key<"myKey">` instead of `Key<"myKey">{}`, saving you from needing the `{}` each time.
Oh I think I finally groked what you suggested! Something like
template <StringLiteral str> static constexpr Key<str> key
in the class namespace - I think this this would work, but if I understand this correctly, You would need to do like
User user {...}; user[User::key<"myKey">]
Which actually is not so bad...
template <StringLiteral str> static constexpr Key<str> key
in the class namespace - I think this this would work, but if I understand this correctly, You would need to do like
User user {...}; user[User::key<"myKey">]
Which actually is not so bad...
Hm - so this would instantiate a variable for each key in the class namespace? I admit I haven't seen anything like this but sounds very interesting
What a beautiful example of abuse of C++ templates. I love it.
But please don’t do this in production.
What ever you need to do, use C++ templates as the last resort because you’ve figured out all other approaches suck even more. Maintaining template heavy code is absolutely horrible and wasteful (and if it’s C++ production code we measure it’s lifetime in decades). And no, there is no way ”to do it correctly so it doesn’t suck”.
Templates belong to the lowest abstraction levels - as stl mostly does. Anyhting more prevalent is an abomination.
If the schema is fixed, have types with the data and if you have a default data, provide it using initializer lists.
Ie. have a struct or structs with explicit serializeToJson and deserializeFromJson functions.
It’s faster to write than figuring out the correct template gymnastics and about 100x easier to maintain and extend.
But please don’t do this in production.
What ever you need to do, use C++ templates as the last resort because you’ve figured out all other approaches suck even more. Maintaining template heavy code is absolutely horrible and wasteful (and if it’s C++ production code we measure it’s lifetime in decades). And no, there is no way ”to do it correctly so it doesn’t suck”.
Templates belong to the lowest abstraction levels - as stl mostly does. Anyhting more prevalent is an abomination.
If the schema is fixed, have types with the data and if you have a default data, provide it using initializer lists.
Ie. have a struct or structs with explicit serializeToJson and deserializeFromJson functions.
It’s faster to write than figuring out the correct template gymnastics and about 100x easier to maintain and extend.
This reminds me of some coworkers I had that moaned anytime they saw 'template' in some code. They were convinced that templates were just bad, and that they should stay in the STL. Some of these people would then proceed to use void* and enums to perform the same computations (the C++ haters kind), or use virtual functions all over the place (the java-background kind). Not only was the result much more fragile (compile errors are now runtime errors), but it would also prevent inlining, not to mention the dynamic memory allocation fest.
No, don’t abuse the language.
Wrap everything in types and all is fine.
Verbose C++ is the only good kind of C++. Why?
C++ code needs to be debuggable and modifiable so when a profiler shows hotspots, you know where they are coming from and react appropriately.
How do you fix a hotspot on a one line of code somewhere in the middle of a template thingsmajic?
You don’t. You need to unroll the template code to untemplated code and the fix the hotspot.
Cases where you don’t need to fix one line hotspots because the resources consumed by the code are irrelevant are fine. But if performance does not matter it likely means you should use a bette language than C++.
Using C++ and not caring about performance finetuning is the worst of both worlds - you are using a cumbersome language AND it’s not even for any practical benefit.
Wrap everything in types and all is fine.
Verbose C++ is the only good kind of C++. Why?
C++ code needs to be debuggable and modifiable so when a profiler shows hotspots, you know where they are coming from and react appropriately.
How do you fix a hotspot on a one line of code somewhere in the middle of a template thingsmajic?
You don’t. You need to unroll the template code to untemplated code and the fix the hotspot.
Cases where you don’t need to fix one line hotspots because the resources consumed by the code are irrelevant are fine. But if performance does not matter it likely means you should use a bette language than C++.
Using C++ and not caring about performance finetuning is the worst of both worlds - you are using a cumbersome language AND it’s not even for any practical benefit.
Where are the functional language programmers so I can hold their beer?
Not a C++ user, but is this the same as #. reader macro in Common Lisp?
Also, this:
For instance, if we have a snarf-file function which reads a text file and returns the contents as a string, we can do:
(defmacro macro-time (&rest forms)
`(quote ,(eval `(progn ,@forms))))
For instance, if we have a snarf-file function which reads a text file and returns the contents as a string, we can do:
(macro-time (snarf-file "foo.txt"))
Yes, the #. reader macro is one of the ways how you can achieve this in Common Lisp. Using the reader macro is also way more efficient because you don't awkwardly use your compiler as an interpreter for a weird subset of your actual language - you simply call to compiled code.
Seeing Greenspun's tenth rule [1] in action again and again is one of the weird things we Common Lisp programmers have to endure. I wish we would have more discussions on how to improve Lisp even further instead of trying to 'fix' C or C++ for the umpteenth time.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun%27s_tenth_rule
Seeing Greenspun's tenth rule [1] in action again and again is one of the weird things we Common Lisp programmers have to endure. I wish we would have more discussions on how to improve Lisp even further instead of trying to 'fix' C or C++ for the umpteenth time.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun%27s_tenth_rule
>I wish we would have more discussions on how to improve Lisp even further instead of trying to 'fix' C or C++ for the umpteenth time.
I agree one million percent; projects like SBCL are great, but my impression is that there are tons of improvements to be had in producing optimized code for modern processors (cache friendliness, SIMD, etc), GPU programming etc. I asked about efforts in those directions here and there, but did not get very clear answers.
I agree one million percent; projects like SBCL are great, but my impression is that there are tons of improvements to be had in producing optimized code for modern processors (cache friendliness, SIMD, etc), GPU programming etc. I asked about efforts in those directions here and there, but did not get very clear answers.
I don’t know much about Common Lisp, but one of the times I evaluated it I wondered why it fairs so poorly in benchmarks[1], and as a complete noob I went and checked what sort of code it will produce for something completely trivial, like adding 2 fixnums. And oh my god:
Furthermore, I’ve also decided to evaluate the debuggers available for Common Lisp. However, despite it being touted as a debugger-oriented language, I think the actual debuggers are pretty subpar, compared to debuggers available for C, C++, Java or .NET. No Common Lisp debugger supports watchpoints of any kind. If a given debugger supports breakpoints at all, they’re often done through wrapping code in code that triggers a breakpoint, or making this code run under interpreter instead of being native. Setting breakpoints in arbitrary code won’t work, it needs to be available as source code first. SBCL with SLIME doesn’t have a nice GUI where I could use the standard F[N] keys to step, continue, stop, etc. I don’t see any pane with live disassembly view. No live watch. LispWorks GUI on the other hand looks like a space station, where I struggle to orient myself. The only feature that is somewhat well-done is live code reload, but IMO it’s something far less important than well-implemented breakpoints and watchpoints in other languages, since the main thing I need the debugger for is to figure out what the hell a given piece of code is doing. Editing it is a completely secondary concern. And live code reload is also not unique to Common Lisp.
Debugger-wise, Java and .NET seem to be leading in quality, followed by C and C++.
[1]: Yes, I have read many comments about the alleged good performance of Common Lisp, but either authors of these comments live in a parallel reality with completely different benchmark results, or they’re comparing to Python. As such I treat those comments as urban legends.
* (defun fx-add (x y)
(declare (optimize (speed 3) (safety 0) (debug 0))
(type fixnum x y))
(+ x y))
FX-ADD
* (disassemble #'fx-add)
; disassembly for FX-ADD
; Size: 104 bytes. Origin: #x7005970068 ; FX-ADD
; 68: 40FD4193 ASR NL0, R0, #1
; 6C: 00048B8B ADD NL0, NL0, R1, ASR #1
; 70: 0A0000AB ADDS R0, NL0, NL0
; 74: E7010054 BVC L1
; 78: BD2A00B9 STR WNULL, [THREAD, #40] ; pseudo-atomic-bits
; 7C: A97A47A9 LDP TMP, LR, [THREAD, #112] ; mixed-tlab.{free-pointer, end-addr}
; 80: 2A410091 ADD R0, TMP, #16
; 84: 5F011EEB CMP R0, LR
; 88: C8010054 BHI L2
; 8C: AA3A00F9 STR R0, [THREAD, #112] ; mixed-tlab
; 90: L0: 2A3D0091 ADD R0, TMP, #15
; 94: 3E2280D2 MOVZ LR, #273
; 98: 3E0100A9 STP LR, NL0, [TMP]
; 9C: BF3A03D5 DMB ISHST
; A0: BF2A00B9 STR WZR, [THREAD, #40] ; pseudo-atomic-bits
; A4: BE2E40B9 LDR WLR, [THREAD, #44] ; pseudo-atomic-bits
; A8: 5E0000B4 CBZ LR, L1
; AC: 200120D4 BRK #9 ; Pending interrupt trap
; B0: L1: FB031AAA MOV CSP, CFP
; B4: 5A7B40A9 LDP CFP, LR, [CFP]
; B8: BF0300F1 CMP NULL, #0
; BC: C0035FD6 RET
; C0: L2: 090280D2 MOVZ TMP, #16
; C4: 2AFCFF58 LDR R0, #x7005970048 ; SB-VM::ALLOC-TRAMP
; C8: 40013FD6 BLR R0
; CC: F1FFFF17 B L0
NIL
Furthermore, I’ve also decided to evaluate the debuggers available for Common Lisp. However, despite it being touted as a debugger-oriented language, I think the actual debuggers are pretty subpar, compared to debuggers available for C, C++, Java or .NET. No Common Lisp debugger supports watchpoints of any kind. If a given debugger supports breakpoints at all, they’re often done through wrapping code in code that triggers a breakpoint, or making this code run under interpreter instead of being native. Setting breakpoints in arbitrary code won’t work, it needs to be available as source code first. SBCL with SLIME doesn’t have a nice GUI where I could use the standard F[N] keys to step, continue, stop, etc. I don’t see any pane with live disassembly view. No live watch. LispWorks GUI on the other hand looks like a space station, where I struggle to orient myself. The only feature that is somewhat well-done is live code reload, but IMO it’s something far less important than well-implemented breakpoints and watchpoints in other languages, since the main thing I need the debugger for is to figure out what the hell a given piece of code is doing. Editing it is a completely secondary concern. And live code reload is also not unique to Common Lisp.
Debugger-wise, Java and .NET seem to be leading in quality, followed by C and C++.
[1]: Yes, I have read many comments about the alleged good performance of Common Lisp, but either authors of these comments live in a parallel reality with completely different benchmark results, or they’re comparing to Python. As such I treat those comments as urban legends.
Skill issue ;)
* (defun fx-add (x y)
(declare (optimize (speed 3) (safety 0) (debug 0))
(type fixnum x y))
(the fixnum (+ x y)))
FX-ADD
* (disassemble 'fx-add)
; disassembly for FX-ADD
; Size: 6 bytes. Origin: #x552C81A6 ; FX-ADD
; 6: 4801FA ADD RDX, RDI
; 9: C9 LEAVE
; A: F8 CLC
; B: C3 RET
NILwhat does (the ....) do?
You can also get the same result by declaring the function's type:
* (declaim (ftype (function (fixnum fixnum) fixnum) fx-add))
(FX-ADD)
* (defun fx-add (x y)
(declare (optimize (speed 3) (safety 0) (debug 0)))
(+ x y))
FX-ADD
* (disassemble 'fx-add)
; disassembly for FX-ADD
; Size: 6 bytes. Origin: #x552C81A6 ; FX-ADD
; 6: 4801FA ADD RDX, RDI
; 9: C9 LEAVE
; A: F8 CLC
; B: C3 RET
NILIm sorry i similar things on my sbcl, and i cannot see the output you are seeing.
CL-USER> (defun fx-add (x y)
(declare (optimize (speed 3) (safety 0) (debug 0))
[OUT]: FX-ADD
CL-USER> (disassemble #'fx-add)
; disassembly for FX-ADD
; Size: 27 bytes. Origin: #x55498736 ; FX- ADD
; 36: 48D1FA SAR RDX, 1
; 39: 48D1FF SAR RDI, 1
; 3C: 4801FA ADD RDX, RDI
; 3F: 48D1E2 SHL RDX, 1
; 42: 710A JNO L0
; 44: 48D1DA RCR RDX, 1
; 47: FF1425E8070050 CALL [#x500007E8] ; #x54602570: ALLOC-SIGNED-BIGNUM-IN-RDX
; 4E: L0: C9 LEAVE
; 4F: F8 CLC
; 50: C3 RET
[OUT]: NIL
``` it looks inefficient but i think it can still be optimized better. SBCL is mediocre at best at optimizations but most people do say that. I have not heard anyone calling it as fast as or faster than C/C++. I think sbcl being mediocre has more to do with how the compiler and its optimizations are structured rather than some inherent inefficiency of common lisp.
I agree with you that lisps have a terrible UX problem. But that is slowly changing. Alive for VSCode is a nice tool if you want to try it out. I personally use neovim for my CL development. fits me well enough.
The biggest reason why someone might choose CL for performance would be the abiliy to simply hack in the compiler as it is running to make custom optimization passes, memory allocations and structuring, very minute GC and allocator control, custom instructions and ability to tell sbcl how to use them WITHOUT RELOADING SBCL.
Those are just the basics in my opinion. Performance has nothing to do with the language...except ig the start times? Beyond that its a game of memory management[which, im pretty sure you can hack too in CL]
all this low level power while still being able to write soo much abstraction that you can slap a whole ass language in CL like APL!
CL-USER> (defun fx-add (x y)
(declare (optimize (speed 3) (safety 0) (debug 0))
(type fixnum x y))
[OUT]: FX-ADD
CL-USER> (disassemble #'fx-add)
; disassembly for FX-ADD
; Size: 27 bytes. Origin: #x55498736 ; FX- ADD
; 36: 48D1FA SAR RDX, 1
; 39: 48D1FF SAR RDI, 1
; 3C: 4801FA ADD RDX, RDI
; 3F: 48D1E2 SHL RDX, 1
; 42: 710A JNO L0
; 44: 48D1DA RCR RDX, 1
; 47: FF1425E8070050 CALL [#x500007E8] ; #x54602570: ALLOC-SIGNED-BIGNUM-IN-RDX
; 4E: L0: C9 LEAVE
; 4F: F8 CLC
; 50: C3 RET
[OUT]: NIL
``` it looks inefficient but i think it can still be optimized better. SBCL is mediocre at best at optimizations but most people do say that. I have not heard anyone calling it as fast as or faster than C/C++. I think sbcl being mediocre has more to do with how the compiler and its optimizations are structured rather than some inherent inefficiency of common lisp.
I agree with you that lisps have a terrible UX problem. But that is slowly changing. Alive for VSCode is a nice tool if you want to try it out. I personally use neovim for my CL development. fits me well enough.
The biggest reason why someone might choose CL for performance would be the abiliy to simply hack in the compiler as it is running to make custom optimization passes, memory allocations and structuring, very minute GC and allocator control, custom instructions and ability to tell sbcl how to use them WITHOUT RELOADING SBCL.
Those are just the basics in my opinion. Performance has nothing to do with the language...except ig the start times? Beyond that its a game of memory management[which, im pretty sure you can hack too in CL]
all this low level power while still being able to write soo much abstraction that you can slap a whole ass language in CL like APL!
> Are you serious? This should be 1, max 2 instructions, with no branches and no memory use.
Sure. ---> One could add two fixnums and get a bignum.
Yes, Common Lisp does by default determine whether to return a bignum or fixnum.
The machine code you've shown takes care of that.
Let's see what the SBCL file compiler says:
If you want a fixnum to fixnum addition, then you need to tell the compiler that the result should be a fixnum.
Sure. ---> One could add two fixnums and get a bignum.
CL-USER 31 > (fixnump (+ MOST-POSITIVE-FIXNUM MOST-POSITIVE-FIXNUM))
NIL
Yes, Common Lisp does by default determine whether to return a bignum or fixnum.
The machine code you've shown takes care of that.
Let's see what the SBCL file compiler says:
CL-USER> (compile-file "/tmp/test.lisp")
; compiling file "/tmp/test.lisp" (written 11 JUL 2024 10:02:04 PM):
; file: /tmp/test.lisp
; in: DEFUN FX-ADD
; (DEFUN FX-ADD (X Y)
; (DECLARE (OPTIMIZE (SPEED 3) (SAFETY 0) (DEBUG 0))
; (TYPE FIXNUM X Y))
; (+ X Y))
; --> SB-IMPL::%DEFUN SB-IMPL::%DEFUN SB-INT:NAMED-LAMBDA
; ==>
; #'(SB-INT:NAMED-LAMBDA FX-ADD
; (X Y)
; (DECLARE (SB-C::TOP-LEVEL-FORM))
; (DECLARE (OPTIMIZE (SPEED 3) (SAFETY 0) (DEBUG 0))
; (TYPE FIXNUM X Y))
; (BLOCK FX-ADD (+ X Y)))
;
; note: doing signed word to integer coercion (cost 20) to "<return value>"
;
; compilation unit finished
; printed 1 note
; wrote /tmp/test.fasl
; compilation finished in 0:00:00.031
#P"/private/tmp/test.fasl"
NIL
NIL
If you want a fixnum to fixnum addition, then you need to tell the compiler that the result should be a fixnum.
(the fixnum (+ x y))
CL-USER> (compile-file "/tmp/test.lisp")
; compiling file "/tmp/test.lisp" (written 11 JUL 2024 10:03:11 PM):
; wrote /tmp/test.fasl
; compilation finished in 0:00:00.037
#P"/private/tmp/test.fasl"
NIL
NILI think the value of compile-time JSON deserialization is... well I was going to say zero but really it's negative. It's a cute trick, but please don't ever do this in a real project.
Despite my writing the article I agree
So I have owned a library for 6years or so that does constexpr JSON to data structures, JSON Link. There are a few benefits and in the near future with #embed it gets even better. The big benefit is that we can now get earlier errors and do testing in constexpr that gives more guarantees around the areas of core UB and in most implementations they add constexpr checked preconditions on the std library too. But, just because it is marked constexpr, doesn't mean it will be run at compile time. This also, limits the shenanigans that the library dev can do to get potential perf and work around design limitations.
In JSON Link's case, since it was using C++17 at the time, it forced me to think around the problem of allocation and who does it. The library does not allocate, but potentially the data structures being deserialized to will. In C++20 you can get limited constexpr allocations but they are good for things like stacks and eliminating the fixed buffers many devs have used in the past; which is a good thing on it's own but isn't really allowing one to parse to a vector at compile time(as in OP's example) for things that persist.
Where this will get really interesting, though, is when #embed is in the major compilers. It's mostly there in clang, with gcc on the way I believe. It will open the door for DSL's and compile time configs in human readable formats or interop with other tools(maybe GUI designers)
As for OP's library, I am not a fan of the json_value like library approach that treats JSON as a thing to care about when it is usually just an imp detail to move to ones business objects.
TL;DR The big benefit though, is the ability to reason about the quality of the code in the library and have stronger testing.
In JSON Link's case, since it was using C++17 at the time, it forced me to think around the problem of allocation and who does it. The library does not allocate, but potentially the data structures being deserialized to will. In C++20 you can get limited constexpr allocations but they are good for things like stacks and eliminating the fixed buffers many devs have used in the past; which is a good thing on it's own but isn't really allowing one to parse to a vector at compile time(as in OP's example) for things that persist.
Where this will get really interesting, though, is when #embed is in the major compilers. It's mostly there in clang, with gcc on the way I believe. It will open the door for DSL's and compile time configs in human readable formats or interop with other tools(maybe GUI designers)
As for OP's library, I am not a fan of the json_value like library approach that treats JSON as a thing to care about when it is usually just an imp detail to move to ones business objects.
TL;DR The big benefit though, is the ability to reason about the quality of the code in the library and have stronger testing.
That's a slightly more interesting use case. But "detect data errors at code compile-time via ultra complex comptime template metaprogramming" does not strike me as a particularly good idea. There are much better, easier ways to detect data errors. And the value of baking JSON data into an executable (even if it's transformed) is highly suspect imho.
Whether or not this is useful (I am also not sure), the JSON doesn't need to survive into runtime at all. If you include the JSON, do a bunch of `if constexpr`, and never touch the JSON outside of a constexpr context, it doesn't have to any footprint on your binary. (I'm not sure if #embed will force stuff to stay in your binary even if you never reference it at runtime)
That's what I meant by "even if it's transformed". Parsing JSON at compile-time to store in some global variable/constant is highly sus imho.
Since you've done this for real in a library, I have to ask: how would you decide to use a compile-time template solution like this versus a code generator or some other "outboard" tool to generate code?
I'm curious since I've gone back and forth on this in my own career. Both approaches come with their own pros and cons, but each get us to the same place.
I'm curious since I've gone back and forth on this in my own career. Both approaches come with their own pros and cons, but each get us to the same place.
I def have more experience with the compile time and it's big issue is how long it can take, but I think it can be overblown on the cost too. However, one can often mitigate this with good code separation and firewalling. The compile time methods will never(probably) be faster than generated code in the C++ compiler. But, a TU with a simple function like `Config parse_config( std::string_view json_doc );` can protect the other code and reduce the general compile time when working on the real code. I think both have their debugging issue with codegen being difficult to tie to the source and the compile time parts relying on the limited error facilities available currently. The proposed p2471 - https://wg21.link/p2471 should help with this a lot and allow for non-literal static_assert messages.
One place I have used the compile time, since JSON Link uses declarative mappings and is type based, is allowing for automatic (de)serialization of function calls over RPC/IPC. This makes things like communicating with web engines really neat, or doing serialized RPC calls over some other mechanism. Code like `server.register( "path", [] ( int x, Foo foo ) { ... } );` is working now in C++, and that's really neat and closely analogues some of the higher level API's in other languages.
One place I have used the compile time, since JSON Link uses declarative mappings and is type based, is allowing for automatic (de)serialization of function calls over RPC/IPC. This makes things like communicating with web engines really neat, or doing serialized RPC calls over some other mechanism. Code like `server.register( "path", [] ( int x, Foo foo ) { ... } );` is working now in C++, and that's really neat and closely analogues some of the higher level API's in other languages.
You're right to point out that this is really 'first class JSON', rather than the Pydantic/Jackson type thing where the json barely exists and is immediately transformed into your models and classes.
Thanks for reading the article though, that's cool. I am a daw_json_link fan
Thanks for reading the article though, that's cool. I am a daw_json_link fan
Build up the test suite inside static asserts, or a macro that lets you switch. It will be really nice when you update right and your IDE will tell you before you even hit compile because clangd found an issue.
You clearly never wrote a Fizz Buzz enterprise grade application ;)
You do have to tag struct fields with a macro, but you can attach contexpr-visitable attributes. There's also a static limit to how many reflectable fields you can have, all reflectable fields need to be at the front of the struct, and the struct needs to be an aggregate.