<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Laurens Van Houtven <_@lvh.io> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">FWIW, Maciej commented that they don't expect to be *faster*, because they actually care about the JSON spec or checking return values. Things which ultrajson conveniently ignores :-) It's pretty easy to do the wrong thing fast, but that seems to be a common theme in this thread.<br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>I just said "improved", i.e. 2.1 ought to be faster than 2.0, no claims relative to anything else :).</div><br><div>I'm aware that ultrajson is pretty bad, but cjson had comparable (if slightly slower) performance. Does it also have correctness and security problems?</div><div><br></div><div>-glyph</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>