Kchat: Persistent group chat in <50 lines using kdb+/k/q web sockets, JavaScript

Re:Kchat: Persistent group chat in <50 lines using kdb+/k/q ... by lmm on Tuesday May 09, 2023 @05:56AM (#35872012)

XMPP needs to die and stay dead. Its extensible design ended up being flexible in all the wrong ways, at once horrendously complex to implement and yet impossible to make do the right thing in several key areas.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kchat: Persistent group chat in <50 lines using kdb+/k/q ... by MattJ100 on Tuesday May 09, 2023 @06:12AM (#35872111)

You could make similar arguments against just about any mature network protocol (see the recent HN post about regrets in TCP/IP's design). Luckily we have plenty of choice, and there are bridges between the open solutions.

The fact is that XMPP has been, and still is, happily deployed at scale in various scenarios. You're welcome to your opinions, but they are just that.

Disclaimer: I'm a full-time XMPP developer and executive director of the XMPP Standards Foundation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kchat: Persistent group chat in <50 lines using kdb+/k/q ... by arp242 on Tuesday May 09, 2023 @12:33PM (#35876868)

> The fact is that XMPP has been, and still is, happily deployed at scale in various scenarios.

And this argument, also, can be applied to almost any mature technology. Remember, there are nuclear reactors in use today that are running happily and safely on PDP-11s programmed in PDP-11 assembly.

Granted, the comment you replied to was not particularly constructive, but it does mirror my own experiences and difficulties with XMPP in the past. This kind of handwavy dismissal does not exactly inspire confidence the situation has improved.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kchat: Persistent group chat in <50 lines using kdb+/k/q ... by MattJ100 on Tuesday May 09, 2023 @01:18PM (#35877445)

I get your point about PDP-11's, but I'm not sure how it applies, practically. My family communicate with each other via XMPP, but I doubt they would be happy to use a PDP-11 for their daily computing :)

My comment was not intended as an empty dismissal of all XMPP criticism. I'm happy to discuss and debate concrete criticisms of XMPP (contact info in my profile). But the parent post did not provide any such, only what sounds like a negative subjective experience whenever they last encountered XMPP. I don't think one person's opinion ought to decide if something should "die and stay dead", when there are so many projects and products built around it, and people using it daily to solve actual problems.

XMPP has evolved massively over the past 20 years. Is it perfect? No (show me something that is!). Do we continue to improve it? Constantly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kchat: Persistent group chat in <50 lines using kdb+/k/q ... by lmm on Tuesday May 09, 2023 @05:14PM (#35880476)

I've never seen a product/system that used XMPP as XMPP (i.e. in extensible form) beat one that didn't. Even systems that should have been a slam-dunk success, like Jabber (there was huge demand for an open-source messenger at the time). And every single big-name successful "built on XMPP" system has ended up switching to a closed model where they control both ends.

[ Parent | on HN ]