I think the overhead is protobuf itself but I can't check.
replyComparing a wrapped C++ gRPC backed stack with an httpx/requests backed one is like comparing apples to elephants.
replyProtobuf simply encode things way more efficient that JSON can define a single object. You're quite frankly spewing bullshit in this whole thread.
replyYou don’t get what they say. It’s not about about how efficient it is after encode, it’s about how fast encode is. They are not spewing bs, they’re focusing on a single point. The question is: do you send it over the wite more often than performing encode/decode.
replyThat'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.
replyThe advantages of json are not related to performance.
doesn't seem universally true, https://github.com/protobufjs/protobuf.js/issues/2114#issue-...
replyIf 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.
replyWhich is not a very generalizable situation.