Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome
by unprovable on Sunday August 16, 2026 @06:48PM
(#49324554)
From protobuf to quantum computing, Google just keeps solving problems nobody has...
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome
by ventana on Sunday August 16, 2026 @07:23PM
(#49324825)
That's not Google. Buf.build is, hilariously enough, a completely separate company that tries to make sense of Google's protobuf, and it's doing a decent job from what I can see.
so you're saying protobuf has no purpose?
i mean...
Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome
by teaearlgraycold on Sunday August 16, 2026 @07:27PM
(#49324847)
Protobuf should at least get credit for enforcing fields be optional.
Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome
by debugnik on Monday August 17, 2026 @04:19AM
(#49327817)
They reluctantly acknowledged that as a mistake by adding an actual "optional" modifier for field presence. proto3's previously so-called optional were really all present with a zero default value; proto2 could have supported that for required fields at the code level if they had wanted. In the end, all they've changed is how they frame the feature.