4 ms·
I think they should have not reinvented the wheel ;-) and use dCBOR42, which has an actual canonical form. But somehow people like to use json in places where i
by c-cube 2y ago
I think they should have not reinvented the wheel ;-) and use dCBOR42, which has an actual canonical form. But somehow people like to use json in places where it's shown again and again it's a terrible choice.
- quantadev 2y agoThe problem with CBOR is that once people relate it to IPFS their will be massive push-back, because IPFS is seen as too complex. I know this is true because I saw it happen. To these kids even XML is deemed "too complex", thus their love affair with JSON instead. The reason Social Media protocols need to be kept simple is precisely for this reason. Getting developers to all agree on things is next to impossible. So the way to combat that is by removing all those "things", and go with the simplest design that's workable. It's almost like politics in that it's "The Art of the Possible". And to be "possible" in this context means universal acceptance.
- c-cube 2y agoMaybe you're right, that's quite sad. I found dasl.ing to be quite nice and simple as a foundation for dCBOR42, without needing the full ipfs craziness. Oh well.
- quantadev 2y agook. And you're right too that CBOR is the "correct" thing to use (despite what I said about acceptance), if we wanted to do it right. CBOR could be the only "complex" piece. Everything else could be Nostr-like (i.e. simple, and using relays).