3 ms·
I'm not seeing what makes this "modern". proto3 is only a few years old and nothing about it strikes me as unusually archaic. Protobuf in general isn't that muc
by djur 8y ago
I'm not seeing what makes this "modern". proto3 is only a few years old and nothing about it strikes me as unusually archaic. Protobuf in general isn't that much older than Go. I can see why Go-compatible syntax would be attractive to Go developers, so maybe that should be in the description rather than "modern"?
- denormalfloat 8y agoThere is a semi-consensus that Proto3 was created to be compatible as Go basic types. Making Go types from Protos, or Proto types from Go is what is being entertained as modern.
- inciampati 8y agoThe compatibility is not just with Go types, but any C structure compatible types in any language.
- djur 8y agoProto3 has features (discussed elsewhere in these comments, like oneOf) that aren't present in Go's type system. I'm not clear on why constraining it so it's more narrowly compatible with a particular implementing language is more modern. It would be useful to see an example of the workflow of using this tool compared with the equivalent workflow while using protoc. That would be a selling point, while "modern" is just a sticking point.