7 ms·
I was wondering this myself. At least one point in its favor is that it's smaller and lighter weight than XMPP. XMPP feels fairly over-engineered, and then you
by lambda 13y ago
I was wondering this myself.
At least one point in its favor is that it's smaller and lighter weight than XMPP. XMPP feels fairly over-engineered, and then you need to trawl through a huge pile of extensions to figure out which ones you will actually need to implement for interoperability.
However, this does bring to mind the old xkcd: http://xkcd.com/927/ http://xkcd.com/927/
- MattJ100 13y agoXMPP is old, and mature. I'm afraid this "over-engineered" feeling comes to just about every successful technology that reaches such an age :) Technology is full of people reinventing the wheel (sometimes better, obviously), but more often than not, unnecessarily. Once you start to dig into any domain deeply, you encounter so many details you would never have imagined existed at first glance. Federated IM is no exception, and it's not easy. XMPP still has problems that are currently being solved that any new protocols won't even be thinking of for 10 years yet.
- marssaxman 13y agoThe over-engineered feeling tends to be present from the start with technologies based on XML...
- stormbrew 13y agoSMTP is old. XMPP is at best adolescent.
- huhtenberg 13y agoXMPP dates back to the early '00, which puts it right smack in the middle of the XML craze. It is as mature as it is bloated, a very strong subjective hurdle to overcome.
- tripzilch 13y ago> XMPP is old, and mature. I'm afraid this "over-engineered" feeling comes to just about every successful technology that reaches such an age :) Really? MIDI comes to mind, immediately, as a counterexample (it is underengineered, if anything, but it's being used widely to great success).