2012/9/26 meh. <m...@schizofreni.co>: > It's not pragmatist at all, it wastes time and resources doing > replaces when it could have just been really binary and prepend the > length of the packet, which is the sane way to do something like that > instead of using an end of packet separator.
No, these few string replaces do not waste any time or resources, this claim is totally ridiculous. > Also protocol buffers would have been a better choice for something > like that, it would have beeen even smaller than your protocol and > easier to implement, it would have made the protocol self-documenting > too. The protocol is self documenting, just print the messages to the console as they are, the commands mean what their names suggest, it is so simple you can even simulate a complete handshake and chat session in telnet manually. Not every hype of the day (xml, protobuf, binary-json, etc) must be used only because it exists and someone thinks it has a cool sounding name, sometimes a simple line of text is enough to transmit a simple foo=bar key-value pair without needing to wrap it into kilobytes of obfuscating bloat. _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
