Remix.run Logo
silvestrov 5 hours ago

Looks very much like a format that should just have been gzipped JSON.

Don't use binary formats when it isn't absolutely needed.

mike_hearn 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's not new. BOMStore is a format inherited from NeXTStep. JSON didn't exist back then.

Also, it's a format designed to hold binary data. JSON can't do that without hacks like base64 encoding.

Binary file stores like this are very common in highly optimized software, which operating systems tend to be, especially if you go looking at the older parts. Windows has a similar format embedded in EXE/DLL files. Same concept: a kind of pseudo-filesystem used to hold app icons and other resources.

jasode 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Looks very much like a format that should just have been gzipped JSON.

For application file formats that require storing binary blob data such as images, bitmaps, etc , many in the industry have settled on "SQLite db as a file format": (https://www.sqlite.org/appfileformat.html)

Examples include Mozilla Firefox using sqlite db for favicons, Apple iOS using sqlite to store camera photos, Kodi media player uses sqlite for binary metadata, Microsoft Visual C++ IDE stores source code browsing data in sqlite, etc.

Sqlite db would usually be a better choice rather than binary blobs encoded as Base64 and being stuffed into json.gzip files. One of the areas where the less efficient gzipped JSON might be better than Sqlite is web-server-to-web-browser data transfers because the client's Javascript engine has builtin gzip decompress and JSON manipulation functions.

trashb 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Every format is binary in the end, you are just swapping out the separators.

I personally subscribe to the Unix philosophy. There are really two options, binary or plain text (readable binary due to a agreed standard formatting). All other formats are a variation of the two.

Additional a binary format suits makes sense when the format is to be used for mobile devices which may not have much storage or bandwidth.

Cthulhu_ 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

JSON is for humans to read and maintain, not machines to read/write - and machines read/write millions of times more than humans do.

Using JSON / HTTP for backend communication (i.e. microservices) is madness when you consider how much overhead there is and how little value having it be human-readable delivers.

lpcvoid 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Strong disagree. I like binary formats because I can just fopen(), fseek() and fread() stuff. I don't need json parser dependency, and don't need to deal with compression. Binary formats are simple, fast and I need a way smaller buffer to read/write them normally. I don't like wasting resources.

high_na_euv 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Binary formats are painful to deal with from user perspective

Sane for 3rd party devs

taneq an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Binary formats (that you can just fopen(), fseek(), fread() etc.) are generally super platform dependent. You can read in an array of bytes and then manually deserialise it (and I’ve done this, for sure!) but that’s basically one step away from parsing anyway.

peterspath 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I choose binary formats over JSON almost every time I can. JSON sucks big time.

drob518 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

JSON is… adequate. I like binary formats, too, when doing low-level programming, but you often want something readable, and JSON is a lot better and easier to parse than many other things, say XML.

mort96 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Uh. You want to store assets in JSON? Why? You generally want asset packs to be seekable so that you can extract just one asset, and why would you want to add the overhead of parsing potentially gigabytes of JSON and then, per asset, decoding potentially tens of megabytes of base64?

embedding-shape 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> You want to store assets in JSON? Why?

Why not have both options? .gltf and .glb being possible for assets been more than helpful to me more than once, having the option gives you the best of both worlds :)

mort96 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What's Apple's incentive for having two different asset pack formats? It seems like more work to support parsing and generating both, and Apple expects you to use their tools to generate asset packs.

Working with binary files really isn't that hard. If Apple documented the .car format, writing your own parser wouldn't be difficult. It's not like it's a complicated format. Still, Apple clearly doesn't intend for people to make their own .car generators; to them, ease of reverse engineering is a bug, not a feature.

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
silvestrov 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Keep all the meta info in JSON and then the big binary files in a zip file. Much easier to parse.

mort96 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Easier for the developer or easier for the computer?

Computers need to do it a bunch for every program launch for every single user of macOS for decades. The developer just needed to write a generator and a parser for the format once.

Would it have been a bit easier to write a parser for a format that's based around a zip file with a manifest.json? I don't know, maybe. You'd end up with some pretty huge dependencies (a zip file reader, a JSON parser), but maybe it'd be slightly easier. Is it worth it?

ape4 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Someday JSON will be out of fashion - like XML is now.

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
yrro 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

... and that is why all 'modern' software is incredibly memory and CPU intensive...

high_na_euv 4 hours ago | parent [-]

But when things go wrong, you can usually find some random json file and adjust it :)

FrankBooth 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]