> This is an argument against hand-generating TLV binary packets, not an argument against using generated code (as in protobuf). Or maybe it's an argument agai

> This is an argument against hand-generating TLV binary packets, not an argument against using generated code (as in protobuf). Or maybe it's an argument against the kind of designs that tempt devs to hand-code them. > See kenton's comment I linked, the zero-copy can be a disadvantage in write-many applications, since if you have a variable-length field (a string or submessage) and you can end up with super inefficient binary encodings. I don't buy that as a counter argument to the point about TLV's disadvantages relative to PER/OER and flatbuffers/cap'n proto. You might prefer OER to cap'n proto in some cases, or vice versa, but not TLV to either.