On 2010-11-09, at 12:01, Christopher Smith <cbsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Kalki70 <kalki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2:59 am, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote:
> > The bigger problem with ASN.1, though, is that it is way over-complicated.
> >  It has way too many primitive types.  It has options that are not needed.
> >  The encoding, even though it is binary, is much larger than protocol
> > buffers'.  The definition syntax looks nothing like modern programming
> > languages.  And worse of all, it's very hard to find good ASN.1
> > documentation on the web.
> You saw on my example that syntax is quite similar to that of
> protobuf. Yes, it CAN be very complicated, but it doesn't need to be.
> You can use it in a simpler way. You are not forced to use all
> primitive types.
> You are looking at it merely from the perspective of someone wishing to use 
> ASN.1, not someone implementing it. The problem is the complexity of 
> implementing ASN.1 in itself brings with it a number of shortcomings.

In a project (LDAP support for Ruby) that I've been involved with for a few 
hears, we have to deal with ASN.1 BER encoding; a parser/generator can't really 
choose to do a subset of the encoding. It's a lot more complex to use the BER 
encoder than if LDAP were based on something that can be self-describing like 

ASN.1 is over-complex and under-understood pretty much universally.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to