4 ms·
This all sounds valid, but it’s also the least interesting part of the whole thing. As a developer I’m expecting to be able to reach for a framework that’ll jus
by petesergeant 1y ago
This all sounds valid, but it’s also the least interesting part of the whole thing. As a developer I’m expecting to be able to reach for a framework that’ll just abstract away all the weird design decisions that he mentions.
- kelnos 1y agoYou're not the intended audience for this blog post. The people who care about this are the kinds of people who have to implement the protocol on either end, and deal with all of those complexities. You won't be able to fully insulate yourself from those complexities, though. Unnecessary complexity causes user-visible bugs and incompatibilities. You want to reach for a framework that will abstract all this stuff away, but because of poorly-designed protocols like MCP, those frameworks will end up being more unreliable than they need to be, in ways that will leak out to you.
- _raz 1y agoWell put
- quantadev 1y agoJust like I saw with protocols like ActivityPub and IPFS, what happens is the developers of these protocols do a couple of reference implementations in their favorite languages, which work, but then when they write the actual "spec" of what they think they did in the code, they never get it fully correct, or even if they do it's messy, incomplete, or not kept up to date. So as long as you're a developer working in one of those two languages you just take their code and run it, and all is fine. However for someone coming along trying to implement the protocol in a brand new language, it gets discovered that the protocol is insufficient and horrible and attempts to build based on the protocol are therefore doomed to fail. I'm not saying MCP has already reached this level of chaos, but I'm just saying this is the failure pattern that's fairly common.