Comments on: Thrift vs. Protocol Buffers

By: Facebook / Apache Thrift « My Blog

Facebook / Apache Thrift « My Blog — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:56:15 +0000

[...] http://stuartsierra.com/2008/07/10/thrift-vs-protocol-buffers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrift_(protocol) Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first [...]

By: Diwaker

Diwaker — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 06:48:39 +0000

For the sake of completeness, I wanted to point folks to my attempts at improving the Thrift documentation:
http://diwakergupta.github.com/thrift-missing-guide/

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:52:12 +0000

It looks like a great library, but not much good if your dev environment is Visual Studio. Probably you’d need something more Posix and cross-platform (perhaps MinGW). The library relies heavily on Posix threads, which are not available in win32 unless you’re prepared to incorporate a GPL or LGPL library, and I’m not. The protocol buffer library is cross-platform, but then again it doesn’t include a transport mechanism and is therefore less powerful.

By: Google Protocol Buffers and other data interchange formats « John's Blog

Google Protocol Buffers and other data interchange formats « John's Blog — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 07:25:28 +0000

[...] recently became an Apache project. Nice stuff. Stuart Sierra has a nice comparison on his blog, Thrift vs. Protocol Buffers. Another worthy contender but not a big enough advantage to stop the internal momentum protobuf [...]

By: Installing Thrift on Snow Leopard

Installing Thrift on Snow Leopard — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:53:08 +0000

[...] If Thrift is still very new and lacks documentation – why bother learning it? Especially when there are more mature alternatives like Google’s Protocol Buffer and SOAP. The answer depends on your requirements. I write web-based financial applications. I use PHP as my server-side scripting language, and C++ for the heavy-lifting. As of this writing, Protocol Buffer does not support PHP, and the SOAP protocol has too much overhead for the high-speed finance world. Furthermore, I think Thrift has more potential than both alternatives and will gain in popularity as more people learn it. Also apparently Thrift was developed by Google engineers working at Facebook who missed using Protocol Buffer, so they re-built it and expanded its feature set. You can find more information on the differences between Thrift and Protocol Buffer at: http://stuartsierra.com/2008/07/10/thrift-vs-protocol-buffers. [...]

By: Thrift and Protocol Buffers performance in Java – Tim[后端技术]

Thrift and Protocol Buffers performance in Java – Tim[后端技术] — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:55:43 +0000

[...] There is another Thrift vs. Protocol Buffers compare non-performance [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:51:05 +0000

Check this out: http://code.google.com/p/thrift-protobuf-compare/wiki/Benchmarking

By: Thrift vs Protocol Bufffers vs JSON | MirthLab

Thrift vs Protocol Bufffers vs JSON | MirthLab — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:37:23 +0000

[...] of this table was originally compiled by Stuart Sierra but has been edited to include additional information relevant to my own [...]

By: timyang

timyang — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:03:35 +0000

I have compared thrift and protobuf serialization performance in Java, thrift is 1.2-2 times faster than protobuf.

http://timyang.net/programming/thrift-protocol-buffers-performance-java/

By: Stuart

Stuart — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:31:31 +0000

“The license information is swapped in the table.”

Fixed. Thanks, Jacob.