▲ | ardit33 6 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
JSON exists, and when compressed it is pretty efficient. (not as efficient as protobuff though). For client facing protocol Protobufs is a nightmare to use. For Machine to Machine services, it is ok-ish, yet personally I still don't like it. When I was at Spotify we ditched it for client side apis (server to mobile/web), and never looked back. No one liked working with it. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | motorest 6 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> JSON exists (...) The blog post leads with the personal assertion that "ad-hoc and built by amateurs". Therefore I doubt that JSON, a data serialization language designed by trimming most of JavaScript out and to be parses with eval(), would meet the opinionated high bar. Also, JSON is a data interchange language, and has no support for types beyond the notoriously ill-defined primitives. In contrast, protobuf is a data serialization language which supports specifying types. This means that for JSON, to start to come close to meet the requirements met by protobuf, would need to be paired with schema validation frameworks and custom configurable parsers. Which it definitely does not cover. | |||||||||||||||||
|