On Saturday, 5 January 2013 at 19:54:11 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
Provides no explanation for how to use it beyond linking to a
series of
long-winded and poorly-formatted RFCs, plus the site doesn't
offer a
clear link to any ready-to-use lib. Either of those problems
alone is
enough to turn away most people.
Funny you mentioned this, because a few years back when I thought
BEEP was a great idea, that's exactly what happened to me. I
could not easily get a grasp on how it worked, there were not
even any examples. What really killed it for me was the only BEEP
library I could find was broken, and I really did not want to try
patching it up when I did not even fully understand what it was
supposed to be doing.
In other words, bad marketing. Unfortunate, since it sounds
like a good
Try searching Google for BEEP, bad choice of name. But then we
use "D"!
idea upon my first glance of it (aside from its choice to use
XML for
certain things, which IMO is too much of an _unnecessary_
baggage for
something as low level as BEEP.)
Yeah, XML is always a turn off for me too. JSON is better, but
even still ...
Maybe people didn't get what's the power behind it and how
simple you can make your life for all network related things.
It may very well do that, but unfortunately, figuring out how
to get up
and running with it doesn't appear to be simple at all, at least
if you're looking at beepcore.org. That would certainly hinder
its
ability to hit critical mass and really take off.
I don't really get why some software engineers seem to think
that in
20xx they can write up a series of code-numbered legalese-esque
documents (and with no formatting, and with baked-in page-breaks
despite being in electronic format), and expect that people
will pay
attention to it.
It's kinda like how academic folk will write overly-convoluted
(almost
patent-like) explanations, employ other forms of obfuscation
such as
calling a summary or intro an "abstract" (just because some
outdated
standard tells them to), stick it all into a multi-column PDF,
and then
wonder why the non-academic side never bothers to pay any
attention.
We should though look into the mirror wrt to D. I'm not
suggesting that D is anywhere near as dysfunctional, it is not,
but there's plenty of room for improvements. The worse we can do
is not think so.
--rt
