News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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...
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.
Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome by r_lee on Sunday August 16, 2026 @07:04PM (#49324689)
so you're saying protobuf has no purpose?
Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome by booi on Sunday August 16, 2026 @07:38PM (#49324940)
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.