The result of msgpack-lite is different from msgpack official tool.

[finscn]

the test data :

    {
            a: [127, 127, 127],
            b: [255, 255, 255],
            c: [32767, 32767, 32767],
            d: [65535, 65535, 65535],
            e: [2147483647, 2147483647, 2147483647],
            f: [4294967295, 4294967295, 4294967295],
            g: [3.14, 3.14, 3.14],
            h: [2.71, 2.71, 2.71],
            i: [true, true, true],
            j: ["c'est bien! 哈哈", "je le sais", "c'est pas bon"],
     }

When I use http://msgpack.org/ online test to encode data, the size of result is 189.
When I use msgpack-lite encode , the size is 201.

[kawanet]

Do you have any problem at decoded objects?
Please don't compare the encoded byte arrays but compare the objects decoded.
Because each encoders would have a difference on optimizing for encoded byte array.

For instance, http://msgpack.org/ encodes 4294967295 to ce ff ff ff ff.
http://kawanet.github.io/msgpack-lite/ encodes it to CB 41 EF FF FF FF E0 00 00.
Those are same value.
JavaScript does not have the primitive unsigned 32bit integer type.

[finscn]

Oh, I see. Thanks.

It could be decoded.