<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Spray-Json on Pi Stack</title>
    <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/spray-json/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Spray-Json on Pi Stack</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/spray-json/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Scala JSON Library Comparison: Circe vs Play-JSON vs Spray-JSON vs Argonaut</title>
      <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-07-14-scala-json-libraries-circe-playjson-sprayjson-argonaut/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-07-14-scala-json-libraries-circe-playjson-sprayjson-argonaut/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;JSON serialization is a fundamental concern in any web application, and the Scala ecosystem offers several mature, type-safe approaches that go far beyond simple string manipulation. Unlike dynamic languages where JSON is trivially a hash map, Scala&amp;rsquo;s type system demands compile-time safety and principled encoding/decoding. In this article, we compare four of the most popular Scala JSON libraries — &lt;strong&gt;Circe&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;Play-JSON&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;Spray-JSON&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;Argonaut&lt;/strong&gt; — examining their APIs, type-safety guarantees, performance characteristics, and integration with popular frameworks.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
