3 ms·
This didn't work for grove.io. Nobody pays money for IRC. There is a tiny, in the not worth it department, fraction of people willing to pay a couple of dollars
by leokun 13y ago
This didn't work for grove.io. Nobody pays money for IRC. There is a tiny, in the not worth it department, fraction of people willing to pay a couple of dollars for an IRC client.
At best you could build something like HipChat or Olark using IRC as a backbone and hide all the complexity of it from the end user and maybe then you have a chance.
Finally, less people are using IRC all the time. If you look at channels that have been around a long time, they've got less users than they used to.
- martindale 13y agoI pay money for grove.io. Not because it provides IRC, but because it provides a smooth, asynchronous communication tool for my team, and defers IRC to what it should be; a protocol.
- toomuchtodo 13y agoHonest question: Why is IRC > XMPP?
- dijit 13y agoPlain text vs rich text. as a result, despite the awesome features of XMPP, IRC is simply more extentable and easy to develop around- whilst also being basic to implement.
- toomuchtodo 13y agoThank you!
- pyre 13y ago> whilst also being basic to implement Maybe it's changed, but I remember trying to communicate w/ IRC servers via telnet (prior to netcat) a while ago (maybe 8 years) and I do recall that most of them have deviated from the 'official' spec (specifically the initial connection handshake). I actually had a chat about this with the epic4 devs at the time. At least XMPP has an official spec. My impression of the IRC world is that it's a de-facto standard. Though there are many implementations that one can clean the details from, cracking open irssi-core to figure out what the protocol is seems a little more difficult than reading an RFC and dealing w/ XML (it's not like we don't have tools built around XML; I would lean heavily on XPath).
- martindale 13y agoSeconded dijit's reply; plaintext is a much easier thing to work with. Also, XML.