On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:19 AM, ara.t.howard <[email protected]> wrote:
> > here is the result of running my 'lines of code' > counter on ruby's built-in smtp library Errr... Are you aware that Pádraic Brady, the one you wrote these words to, has written thousands of lines of code to make it possible for PHP-based PSHB implementations to be written in "just a few lines of code"? Someone else (actually many people) wrote the thousands of lines of code that your "few" lines of ruby rely on in order to provide a small, limited function SMTP library. But, that's not surprising. An important part of getting protocols used by people is to build the libraries that hide the complexity and detail of protocols so that drag-and-drop coders, script-kiddies and others can implement useful stuff without too much trouble. There will be "simple" ruby interfaces to PSHB one day, if there isn't one already. In any case, an LOC count for a library interface doesn't say anything useful about the underlying system. > it takes about 20 more to add TLS support. No. It takes thousands of lines of code to provide TLS support. The mere fact that you need not be aware of that code is irrelevant. Any useful protocol or capability will eventually be wrapped in a simple library interface allowing it to be used with minimal understanding on the part of casual coders. The fact that SMTP and TLS have already had such wrappers written speaks only to their age, not to whether they are the best protocols to handle any particular problem. bob wyman On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:19 AM, ara.t.howard <[email protected]>wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:28, Pádraic Brady <[email protected]> > wrote: > > With all the protocol comparisons, people have overlooked the obvious. > Ask > > yourself a serious question, how many web developers (or even small app > > developers) actually have a clue about SMTP, NNTP or even (though slowly > > growing) XMPP? Compare that to HTTP. A developer's pet cat probably knows > > all about HTTP about now ;). Pubsubhubbub has the benefit of being so > simple > > and obvious, that implementing it is exceptionally easier - irrespective > of > > the technical advantages/disadvantages of other alternatives. > > a friend was recently hiring web developers: he asked each of them to > describe a simple GET request, start to finish. 1 our of 30 could > answer. this was just last week here in boulder for a highly paid > gov't position. > > the power of any computing system does not lie exclusively with being > understood - the main power lies in it's power to abstract difficult > problems. ssh is a class example here - no one understands it and yet > all of us use it successfully every day. > > if SMTP were like the c++ compiler standard and had taken 15 years to > complete you might have something, but the reality is that it was easy > enough and it's done. > > here is the result of running my 'lines of code' counter on ruby's > built-in smtp library > > cfp:1.8$ loc net/smtp.rb > 260 > > it takes about 20 more to add TLS support. that is simple enough. > > > -- > -a > -- > be kind whenever possible... it is always possible - h.h. the 14th dalai > lama >
