3 ms·

FWIW, I didn't find writing a TCP stack any fun.. Standards are more a guidance. (or were, back then)

• jjoonathan 5y ago
  Oh, standards were a guidance back then? You had it good! I'm only half kidding. The bluetooth standard is very heavy on the architecture astronaut factor and light on the specification. It isn't so much a "standard" as an anthology of visions for wireless connectivity, each of which delegates all of the important decisions to the layer above. Which means that all of the decisions wind right back up in the implementer's lap, and the implementer has to sort out the compatibility matrix the old fashioned way, one compatible partner stack at a time. But everything still has to be built out of the lego pieces the architecture astronauts came up with, of course. Ugh. It's like if someone asked for a standard to send mail, and instead of SMTP they came up with "The English Language." All the necessary degrees of freedom are there, but it doesn't constrain the problem space, so it's almost completely useless as a standard. EDIT: No, that's too simple, a lot of people already speak The English Language. Klingon, then. All the necessary degrees of freedom are there...
  • MisterTea 5y ago
    It's a maddening web of profiles which maps to a tree of protocols which seems to be the result of design by committee. Such a bloated system for something that just needs to send friggin bytes.