3 ms·
Every one of hp's posts in this thread have been informative. Many of them were written as responses to cries arising from the mob with pitchforks and torches,
by rsanders 12y ago
Every one of hp's posts in this thread have been informative. Many of them were written as responses to cries arising from the mob with pitchforks and torches, but that doesn't reduce their utility. Given that both the original article, and your comment, made much of the "ASCII binary protocol", explaining the apparent contradiction certainly raised the signal to noise ratio here.
- krig 12y agoWell, I don't disagree with any of that. I wrote my comments in a bad mood and they came out harsher than I wish they had. I'm just thinking that if I was the author of dbus, I wouldn't engage the noise on HN. It was an honest question and I got an honest reply, and that's great. Hey, all I did in my comment was to quote from the spec. My complaint (well, one of them) is that it's a "binary" protocol but it requires parsing just like an ascii protocol, it encodes data as ascii values and it even embeds a full ascii protocol in the auth sequence. (not to mention XML for reflection with an embedded type DSL in attributes, ...)