News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Gobs of data (2011) by randomdata on Monday December 04, 2023 @09:27AM (#38517637)
> I can't help but feel he missed the point

Did he miss the point, or was the point to light a fire under the protobuf team to improve their product? Which they eventually did (e.g. required fields were removed after this post was made).

Re:Gobs of data (2011) by _ZeD_ on Monday December 04, 2023 @10:42AM (#38518617)
FYI: required fields were re-introduced in protobuf. why? because despite what the gobs team and others thinks, that is a necessary feature to work with data structures. If "everything is optional", what is the value of any structure, over sending an untyped associative array of stuff?
Re:Gobs of data (2011) by morelisp on Monday December 04, 2023 @10:48AM (#38518693)
"Optional" fields, as in fields you can tell if they were explicitly set or not, were re-introduced. Depending on your definition either required fields were not reintroduced, or required fields with a mandatory default value were until recently the only kind of field in proto3.
Re:Gobs of data (2011) by danpalmer on Monday December 04, 2023 @09:43AM (#38517869)
It's possible that was an aim, and I'm not familiar with the timelines here, however this does again focus more on the mechanics of protos which I still don't think matter as much as them being fully integrated into a company like they are at Google. The mechanics of them are still not great. Maybe this was a blocker to that happening though?