[erlang-questions] fyi: Google protocol buffers

[ERLANG]

Hi,

Perfectly agree with you Christian.
So, my question again. Any guys interested  to do that ?

cheers
Y.

Le 10 juil. 08 à 01:42, Christian S a écrit :

>> I looked at UBF a long time ago and I thought it was a very
>> interesting idea. What I was wondering is why there seems to have  
>> been
>> so little apparent interest in this (i.e. why hasn't it transitioned
>> from the POC).
>
> As long as we are a bit cynical in this thread, I'll share some of  
> my cynism.
>
> I think UBF has got no attention because the skill (in the bottom 95%
> of programmers) at using parser generators and parsing is low, people
> go as far as splitting text on a delimiter character (or regexp
> pattern), they maybe do this further on the results, but that's it. If
> more is needed, they bring in XML, because DOM parsers doesnt
> intimidated the ego the same way a tool you dont know will do.
>
> UBF, the transport format, can only really be appreciated if you know
> and directly see that it is easy to implement (comparingly). If you
> can see that it is very feature competent, that it has very un-muddled
> data types, the plain list, the tuple, integers, strings, symbols,
> 8bit binary blobs (without silly base64 tricks). There is no XML
> schema on top to bring you elementary data types that all
> machine-to-machine transport _will_ need.
>
> UBF, the protocol contract language, can only really be appreciated if
> you get to the next level of understanding publicly exposed protocols,
> implementing them, maintaining them, documenting them, designing them.
> So much about programming against an interface is "can i say this
> right now?", or, "what do i need to say before what i really want?".
> You dont see many interfaces targeting this kind of specification, all
> you get is that they're going to throw IllegalStateException if the
> programmer bothered to check premises explicitly, otherwise you will
> likely get a NullPointerException and no guarantees about how valid
> the internal state of the object is now.
>
>
> Sorry for my rant.   ... ranting is too much fun.
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions