3 ms·

I dislike the details of JMAP’s design. While I appreciate the value it brings, I can see the 5 years of struggle in the sheer size of the multiple specs neede

by jchook 7y ago

I dislike the details of JMAP’s design. While I appreciate the value it brings, I can see the 5 years of struggle in the sheer size of the multiple specs needed to define some pretty rudimentary mail client/server functionality (retrieve, send, push, pagination, etc). At some points they use JSON (a data format) to describe procedures... like a programming language written in JSON. It feels a bit like using a screwdriver handle as a hammer. How did we end up with JMAP instead of something simpler or modular, especially with GraphQL and other similar innovations on the radar?

zeveb 7y ago
> At some points they use JSON (a data format) to describe procedures... like a programming language written in JSON. It feels a bit like using a screwdriver handle as a hammer. And folks laugh at me for suggesting S-expressions until I'm blue in the face! Seriously, this is one of the areas in which they excel (ref.: literally every line of Lisp ever written). They're a pretty nifty data format too (cf. https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/the-emacs-problem https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/the-emacs-problem).