Comment by morshu9001
Comment by morshu9001 17 hours ago
Protobuf ended up having more tooling in the end though, and it didn't take very long to get there. This is like how JSON replaced XML for many use cases.
Comment by morshu9001 17 hours ago
Protobuf ended up having more tooling in the end though, and it didn't take very long to get there. This is like how JSON replaced XML for many use cases.
I rely on protos for lots of stuff at work and honestly couldn't imagine having to do all this in ASN.1, even if tooling were completely solved.
I use both (and JSON, and I've used XML, and I've used XDR, and ...). Check this out and weep for not having anything like this for PB: https://github.com/heimdal/heimdal/blob/master/lib/asn1/READ...
Not sure what this is. Transcoding to/from JSON is something protobuf does easily, but this readme is about a lot more than that.
Yes, it's about a lot more than that. It's about automatically and recursively encoding/decoding through "typed hole". A typed hole is where you have a struct with one field that denotes the type of the other, and the other is basically a byte string whose value is an encoding of a value of a type identified by the other field. Typed holes are surprisingly common in protocols. Typically you first decode the outer value, then you inspect the typed hole's type ID field, then you decode the typed hole's value accordingly, and this is code you have to write by hand. Whereas with automatic handling of typed holes just one invocation of the codec is sufficient (as opposed to one codec invocation for the outermost value plus one invocation for every typed hole).
If they had put the same energy towards building tooling for an existing IDL/codec then they would have had strictly less work to do. Besides being inefficient in the use of their resources they also saddled us with 15th system (probably more like a 25th system, but you get the reference), and a poor one at that. There is really nothing much good to say about PB.