On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:07 AM, AJ Campbell <a...@rocketsail.com> wrote:
> JSON is probably going to be the go-to format to send/receive renderable 3D > packets. The thought of doing it with XML makes me feel ill. I'm sure Racket > can handle JSON data (it very well might already for all I know), It does of course. > but Javascript found its way across the whole stack (among other reasons) > because we love the idea of having a universal language to eliminate the > serialization between client and server, plus it knocks down communication > barriers between front-end and back-end team members. That's actually a problem. When we launched Racket, Matthew insisted from the get-go that office partners do not communicate orally about things. Pop quiz: why was he right? In my experience teaching courses where I give free choice of PLs for a distributed system, few languages make it easy for seniors to implement cross-process/network communication right. I always implement the systems by myself and let students vote to which format they want to stick: S-expressions (1958, but still better than what people invent now), XML, or JSON. For me, it's a two-line switch. For those on the losing end, it's a catastrophe. Pop quiz: why? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
