Addressing each of your points in turn: - What's the difference from a spec? There used to be a FAQ on our site emphasising that at its core _wym_ is a spec.

Addressing each of your points in turn: - What's the difference from a spec? There used to be a FAQ on our site emphasising that at its core _wym_ is a spec. Our reference implementation, itself made up of multiple pieces (wymd, wymsy, oneweb, ...) provides a way to actually make use of that spec and to validate all the guarantees of the strict interfaces. Also, I'm not a fan of entities who would define a spec in isolation without a reference implementation alongside it - where's the proof that you're making the right decisions? We provide that implementation to keep ourselves grounded. - Won't multi-language limit features? Not really. For one thing, since we're self-hosting we can't afford to lack power and expressivity. For example everyone has the ability to refer to types (as per generics) else we wouldn't be able to implement the core. ;) Our interface language - it's quite simple, to make the addition of new language bindings trivial, but we expose built-in services to use more powerful features simply by switching which nodes you're holding on to - there's a data-implementation divide, where a node needn't understand a feature in order to deal in its data. The net effect is that language bindings can be created trivially and evolved to support features as a good way of dealing with them is found (e.g. in the simplest case, Javascript Int64 support). - Having a central authority is better. This is an interesting one :D - I agree, in a way. A wymd cluster self-starts a consensus using a lock service, performs master election and then uses this consensus service for registration and discovery. We have an elected distributed authority. :P