3 ms·
He, for me it's the other way: I like IRC because it's very simplistic. But when I have to do something with XMPP on the protocol level I just want to stab my e
by kybernetyk 14y ago
He, for me it's the other way: I like IRC because it's very simplistic. But when I have to do something with XMPP on the protocol level I just want to stab my eyes out because it's a bloated pile of XML.
Maybe it depends on tooling. If you have a language that is married with XML - like Java - you probably will have no problems with XMPP. But if you're doing stuff with C you will love the simple structure of IRC.
- lucian1900 14y agoIRC is extremely idiosyncratic, though. XMPP is much more logical and consistent. Any decent language can deal with trees, although XML is sometimes a little annoying. The potential problem with XML is the overhead. I'm not sure that's been an issue so far, though.
- lmm 14y agoI've heard it argued that the main reason Wave died was all the XML overhead from being built on XMPP.
- lucian1900 14y agoI doubt that's it. More likely Wave died because they somehow neglected to actually release it. By the time they closed it down, very few people had gotten invites.
- lmm 14y agoMaybe they were stingy with the invites because they couldn't scale up the servers?
- shabble 14y agoXML is a gleaming beacon of purity and grace compared to the CTCP spec[1]. Something that should be relatively simple: "allow very basic RPC using inband signals." The mess of incoherent and mutually contradictory statements about how quoting these messages should happen makes it likely that anyone writing a bot either uses an existing library or still wakes up occasionally in teh middle of the night in a cold sweat. [1] http://www.irchelp.org/irchelp/rfc/ctcpspec.html http://www.irchelp.org/irchelp/rfc/ctcpspec.html