X-Received: by 10.99.121.132 with SMTP id u126mr14883851pgc.1.1482711701651; Sun, 25 Dec 2016 16:21:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.35.89 with SMTP id k25mr683387otd.11.1482711701608; Sun, 25 Dec 2016 16:21:41 -0800 (PST)
Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!b123no3521933itb.0!news-out.google.com!u18ni5985ita.0!nntp.google.com!75no3518718ite.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 16:21:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <o3plbj$68l$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=72.49.195.178; posting-account=WTFS-AoAAABsiGRzE4MmIarYuIMkGBCZ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.49.195.178
References: <o3m6up$3e3$1@dont-email.me> <1rz8pc765tt5d$.1mqm96f9bs5jy$.dlg@40tude.net> <JSON-20161226000736@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <o3plbj$68l$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f1c3ec7c-e96e-4ed4-9ccf-eae176233dbc@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Simply displaying JSON data for users: what is your preferred method?
From: David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 00:21:41 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:31960

On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 6:41:05 PM UTC-5, $Bill wrote:
> On 12-25-16 15:19, Stefan Ram wrote:
> > JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> writes:
> >> Just guessing, but I think a regular expression based converter would be
> >> more efficient and faster than object based. i.e. JSON string to HTML string
> >> then slap it all together using innerHTML, instead of JSON objects to HTML
> >> element objects.
> >
> >   I believe that it should be quit difficult to properly parse
> >   JSON source with regular expression.
> 
> I wrote a JSON parser in Perl using RE's and parsing out tokens which I then used
> to create a Perl hash duplicating the JSON object - not that difficult code-wise
> (maybe 500-600 lines including blanks), but haven't really checked the efficiency
> of it.

How about the accuracy? In other words, I agree with Stefan Ram's assessment (though his post is oddly absent here on Google Groups).