3 ms·
I don't love the current approach to the Fediverse but there's so little substance to this article. It starts out by insulting software engineers who build free
by jmcgough 4y ago
I don't love the current approach to the Fediverse but there's so little substance to this article. It starts out by insulting software engineers who build free OSS: "ActivityPub looks like it was written by an idiot who just won second prize in idiots' contest."
It's easy to insult people, but I don't see many clear technical arguments here (other than "well STMP already did this so why bother reinventing it" or that the docs suck).
- guywhocodes 4y agoAs he goes on the main criticism becomes that it is too complex to ever succeed at being more than it is. The evidence of this is besides his own experience the projects that failed when integrating with activitypub for federation. Personally I tried to dig into the protocol a few years back and found at least at the time that the documentation was indeed very bad and my only option was basically to read the mastodon repositories. So I think there is something to it but I definitely agree that the insults are detrimental to the point.