It is an interesting project, but I'm sceptical. Veilid appears to be focused on their implementation in Rust, not so much as reference implementation but as the thing itself. I was hoping for a W3C like definition of a standard, not "bound" to their implementation or Cap'n Proto.
Cap'n'proto is very well designed and actually has multiple implementations. It also helps writing bindings for all kinds of languages that may want to call Veilid APIs.
I don't think that defining yet another serialization format would buy anything.
To me, the choice of Cap’n Proto means the developer looked at a colossal number of RPC frameworks in order to understand why Cap’n Proto is the best of them. While these things are subjective and also I cannot predict the future (ie actual adoption), it makes sense that being really opinionated and seemingly unorthodox is side by side to innovating.
True. On the other hand, gnunet tried the standards-based approach with binary specifications, as of yet with basically no adoption. One main problem I see that is very hard to integrate any other language or framework. If veilid now goes for trivially generatable language bindings, maybe they have more luck and this is what's needed to get something like this off the ground?
https://veilid.com/framework/rpc
It is an interesting project, but I'm sceptical. Veilid appears to be focused on their implementation in Rust, not so much as reference implementation but as the thing itself. I was hoping for a W3C like definition of a standard, not "bound" to their implementation or Cap'n Proto.