[erlang-questions] Binary string literal syntax

[Loïc Hoguin]

On 06/07/2018 12:56 AM, Sean Hinde wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 7 Jun 2018, at 00:21, zxq9@REDACTED wrote:
>>
>> On 2018年6月6日水曜日 11時41分01秒 JST Sean Hinde wrote:
>>
>>> As a protocol wrangling language I would argue Erlang has no peers, but many more protocols are string based now than when the bit syntax was invented.
>>
>> By count this is patently false. Most protocols are binary based, as the number of ad hoc binary protocols created for IoT vasty outnumber the handful of prolific string-based ones. Can you think of a better language for IoT protocol wrangling than Erlang?
> 
> No arguments from me on the suitability of Erlang for protocol wrangling. And these string based ones are definitely prolific. I spent today dealing with json in Erlang for some banking protocol
> 
>>
>> Sure, most people have no clue how to program sockets these days so they use HTTP for everything -- but that isn't *most* protocols, that's a relatively small set of overwhelmingly *prolific* protocols. My prediction is that binary protocols will become more prolific as the extremely limited shared resource of wireless bandwidth becomes more and more saturated (and I don't think compression is a fix-all here, though it certainly helps).
> 
> I don’t think it really matters how we count. Text based protocols are here and Erlang ought to provide a great programming environment for them too.

But they're on the way out. You won't find many new text-based 
protocols, and for good reasons. Even HTTP/2 went binary (and QUIC/HTTP 
will do the same).

Plain-text is still king for content, but the trend has been toward 
binaries in recent years. Look at the number of binary serialization 
formats that popped up. Of course, it will be harder to take over JSON.

Cheers,

-- 
Loïc Hoguin
https://ninenines.eu