3 ms·

Exactly! While it's nice to have easy-to-read serialization formats when debugging, it strikes me as an attempt to come up with one format for both configurati

by athenot 10y ago

Exactly! While it's nice to have easy-to-read serialization formats when debugging, it strikes me as an attempt to come up with one format for both configuration and serialization. But the 2 have very different design objectives. Once we get over our fear of binary formats, there are some simple and generic ways to do serialization that can be used in any language, like Erlang's OSC[1], discussed on HN last year[2]. [1] http://joearms.github.io/2016/01/28/A-Badass-Way-To-Connect-Programs-Together.html http://joearms.github.io/2016/01/28/A-Badass-Way-To-Connect-... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10976737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10976737

jcelerier 10y ago
> Erlang's OSC Uh ? This is just some guy that used OSC in Erlang. OSC is used in many many many languages, mostly used in computer music and interactive arts : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Sound_Control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Sound_Control And guess what, it's honestly a pain as soon as you have a big application. Source: I'm developer of an OSC sequencer (http://www.i-score.org http://www.i-score.org) and a common complaint from artists with between 1000 and 20000 parameters in their OSC namespace is that it's absolutely unamanageable ; a lot of people are trying to add order, type systems, you name it, on OSC to bring some safety and documentability to the protocol.