4 ms·
If you are arguing that there exist use cases for which Protobuf is ill-suited, then fine, I obviously agree. But you seem to be arguing that Protobuf is bad b
by kentonv 6y ago
If you are arguing that there exist use cases for which Protobuf is ill-suited, then fine, I obviously agree.
But you seem to be arguing that Protobuf is bad because it is not well suited to certain use cases, dismissing all other use cases as "non-serious". That is offensive.
- jasonzemos 6y agoI asked you not to argue semantics, but you're doing it anyway. I didn't respond here to argue protobufs actually is bad, since all software is suited to something for somebody somewhere. In fact, I can just do that now: Protobufs is bad. You seem to agree, because you haven't even advocated for it -- just flatbuffers and Cap'n Proto and the phonebook of alternatives. Listen, I don't care who you've worked for or what you've done. As a scientist and engineer I'm totally ready and able to entertain critiques of my prior works without being offended. I'm offended that this is the quality of your participation here.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dekhn 6y agoThis is a really unprofessional and unreasonable approach (and I can see you're being downvoted for it). Since you say you're a scientist and engineer, can you share your prior work so we can evaluate it?