4 ms·
Yes. Ubiquity doesn't mean it is a fit for purpose. Especially for most things these extensions try to overcome. In this case ubiquity is largely a product of
by rubyfan 10y ago
Yes. Ubiquity doesn't mean it is a fit for purpose. Especially for most things these extensions try to overcome.
In this case ubiquity is largely a product of the primary consumer of much JSON data is a web browser. Likely much of that data is simple enough that it does not require more than what JSON provides.
- bpicolo 10y agoUbiquity is a very useful property of interchange formats (APIs are a big deal). That said, for internal-only things where I have a lot of control (and I'm writing in supported languages - wtb elixir), I'd probably be using grpc
- drawkbox 10y agoThe next guy who inherits your internal code would prefer you to just use JSON. There is a reason it is ubiquitous, simplicity. I wonder how long though with all these type systems and XJSONs.
- bpicolo 10y agoMmm, disagree. It's not really the interchange format that's the only useful part of GRPC. (Though protobuf is pretty standardized these days). This was just the context of "I'm a big org standardizing on microservice tradeoffs", so maybe slightly out-of-context
- drawkbox 10y agoAt least GRPC is a standard, JSON/REST is arguably more simple. But both are at least standard and allow teams to not reinvent everything and provide a baseline/plane for others to work on it. Just stating most programmers would probably rather inherit a JSON/REST app over a GRPC one though it is quite nice.
- rubyfan 10y agoI agree, and if it successfully handles 80% or more of use cases then it's a win. I just don't have the expectation that it should handle the other 20% and if I had a use case in that 20% I probably wouldn't start addressing my problem by creating yet another JSON extension.