4 ms·

Zulip is implementing the same bad architecture as google/ms/apple/fb's messengers (custom protocol, no federation), but at least it does it well (open source,

Zulip is implementing the same bad architecture as google/ms/apple/fb's messengers (custom protocol, no federation), but at least it does it well (open source, usable, do-one-thing-well, no dark patterns, powerful and stable API).

duped 5y ago
How is it "bad" if it's the standard used by the most successful messenger platforms
- rcthompson 5y ago
  Because there isn't a standard. The point is each one implements their own protocol instead of adapting a standard such as Matrix or XMPP. (Whether any suitable standard exists (much less existed in 2012!) is another issue, but regardless it's fair to say that the current state of things is not ideal.)
  - duped 5y ago
    I don't think "whether any suitable standard exists" is another issue, it's the exact one. If you're building a product and there is no standard to cover core technology, you roll your own because it's faster than waiting for someone else to invent one. But that said I don't think "using a standard protocol" is a value in and of itself.
    - jlkuester7 5y ago
      > But that said I don't think "using a standard protocol" is a value in and of itself. Standard protocols are very valuable if you care about reach while avoiding vendor-lock-in. I want to be able to self-host my server (or pay someone to host it for me), but I also want to be able to communicate with people on other servers. It is that balance of control and networking that is really powerful. Someone else mentioned here about how FHIR uses Zulip as the group chat for their community. That is great! But, to participate, you need an account on their instance and then if you want to participate in multiple Zulip instances you either need multiple clients or some kind of multi-instance support in your client. And then you still have to manage separate profiles for each instance, etc, etc... OTOH, a bunch of open source projects use Matrix instances for their community chat rooms. One of the huge benefits I see from that is that I can use my single Matrix account (on the server that I host) to join all the different communities that I am interested in. (And now with the new Spaces feature in Element, there is even better controls over being able to still retain a separation of concerns between all the different conversations I am a part of...)
    - zaik 5y ago
      > If you're building a product and there is no standard to cover core technology That's what the X in XMPP is for.
- jlkuester7 5y ago
  It is certainly bad in terms of longevity. Google Wave was temporary; email is forever. Of course, the downside of federation is complexity. Matrix.org is a great choice for an open federated messaging protocol, but the challenges of operating in that kind of ecosystem have certainly stunted their ability to add features and polish when compared to a closed system such as Zulip.
kevinmgranger 5y ago
Is "custom protocol" really that bad if the existing ones were insufficient? Is this question just opening myself up to a cacophony of "what was wrong with IRC / XMPP?"
- cracell 5y ago
  XMPP supports extensions. Generally speaking, use the standard until you can't. Then just extend it and write up a proposal for your extension to make it into the next version of the official protocol.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  It is. So what was insufficient about XMPP?
usr1106 5y ago
They told that they are working om Matrix integration. I have no idea whether that work is still on track or already abandoned.

duped 5y ago

How is it "bad" if it's the standard used by the most successful messenger platforms

rcthompson 5y ago
Because there isn't a standard. The point is each one implements their own protocol instead of adapting a standard such as Matrix or XMPP. (Whether any suitable standard exists (much less existed in 2012!) is another issue, but regardless it's fair to say that the current state of things is not ideal.)
- duped 5y ago
  I don't think "whether any suitable standard exists" is another issue, it's the exact one. If you're building a product and there is no standard to cover core technology, you roll your own because it's faster than waiting for someone else to invent one. But that said I don't think "using a standard protocol" is a value in and of itself.
  - jlkuester7 5y ago
    > But that said I don't think "using a standard protocol" is a value in and of itself. Standard protocols are very valuable if you care about reach while avoiding vendor-lock-in. I want to be able to self-host my server (or pay someone to host it for me), but I also want to be able to communicate with people on other servers. It is that balance of control and networking that is really powerful. Someone else mentioned here about how FHIR uses Zulip as the group chat for their community. That is great! But, to participate, you need an account on their instance and then if you want to participate in multiple Zulip instances you either need multiple clients or some kind of multi-instance support in your client. And then you still have to manage separate profiles for each instance, etc, etc... OTOH, a bunch of open source projects use Matrix instances for their community chat rooms. One of the huge benefits I see from that is that I can use my single Matrix account (on the server that I host) to join all the different communities that I am interested in. (And now with the new Spaces feature in Element, there is even better controls over being able to still retain a separation of concerns between all the different conversations I am a part of...)
  - zaik 5y ago
    > If you're building a product and there is no standard to cover core technology That's what the X in XMPP is for.
jlkuester7 5y ago
It is certainly bad in terms of longevity. Google Wave was temporary; email is forever. Of course, the downside of federation is complexity. Matrix.org is a great choice for an open federated messaging protocol, but the challenges of operating in that kind of ecosystem have certainly stunted their ability to add features and polish when compared to a closed system such as Zulip.

kevinmgranger 5y ago

Is "custom protocol" really that bad if the existing ones were insufficient? Is this question just opening myself up to a cacophony of "what was wrong with IRC / XMPP?"

cracell 5y ago
XMPP supports extensions. Generally speaking, use the standard until you can't. Then just extend it and write up a proposal for your extension to make it into the next version of the official protocol.
nerdponx 5y ago
It is. So what was insufficient about XMPP?

usr1106 5y ago

They told that they are working om Matrix integration. I have no idea whether that work is still on track or already abandoned.