This thread seems to be a bit old but anyway this topic became suddenly important for me since I start to hear the "Protobuf" new magic word.
Now I was a bit surprised to discover that it is actually the same idea as CORBA! So the question asked at the beginning of this thread „Why to reinvent the wheel?“ is appropriate. Why Google need to reinvent the wheel if technologies were available? Now I have my own answer: companies dont trust anyone but themselves, they aspire to be the world domination force, they dont care about existing standards and they replace them with their own! Next question is: do I want to live in such a world where there is no trust and collaboration between people for the common good? My answer is NO, which seems to go against the current „politically correct“ way of life of having to be a liberal capitalist „competitive“, against the competitors (as if they were your worst enemies)! I have the feeling that the computer industry could be much more efficient if there were better standards and improving them instead of reinventing the wheel by private companies! So when company X will finally be dead, it will bring down also the companies which relied on their wheels, unless of course they will be quick to replace them! I understand that long-lasting standards drag with them old technologies and way of thinking, but why couldn’t they make a new CORBA standard to be the same as Protobuf if this is so good, but still call it CORBA so that everyone knows which wheel you are talking about, and that it doesnt belong to any particular company but goes to the benefit of us all!?!? Sure also Microsoft will tell you that you dont need to reinvent the wheel, but provided you use their wheel! ;) http://dotnet.dzone.com/articles/don%E2%80%99t-reinvent-wheel-part-1 So as I see it this is not so much a technological motivation, rather a political / economical one. On Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:19:18 PM UTC+2, Oliver wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:21 AM, Kalki70 <kalk...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > Maybe the ASN.1 compiler that you used used too many memory > > allocations or was not too fast. There are some very good, like from > > OSS Novalka. > > I've used both OSS Nokalva's ASN.1 to Java compiler and protobuf in > anger. protobuf is at least as fast, provides a better API (especially > if you want to do any reflection), and is less buggy than OSS's > product. Being able to build protobuf from source makes our build > process a lot simpler, too. > > We actually use both in our system - OSS when we must talk ASN.1 in > external protocols, and protobuf for our internal protocols where we > are not implementing to an external specification. > > I think that protobuf's simplicity is a large part of why its > implementation is better than the various ASN.1 products out there. > ASN.1 seems to be the Ada of protocol description languages, really.. > > Oliver > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
