Given her experience and work history, it's much more likely that she views any text-based protocol as an unnecessary abstraction over simply processing raw TCP.
Is this a joke? I don't even know where to begin with this comment... It reads like a joke, but I suspect it's not?
TCP is just a bunch of bytes... You can't process a bunch of bytes without understanding what they are, and that requires signaling information at a different level (ex - in the bytes themselves as a defined protocol like SSH, SCP, HTTP, etc - or some other pre-shared information between server and client [the worst of protocols - custom bullshit]).
__attribute__(packed) structs with an enum at the front indicating their type. The receivers use a switch to figure out which sub-message to interpret the strict as...
It isn't pretty and you better be able to control the rollout of both sides because backwards compatibility will not be a thing. But I'll take it over a giant pile of code generation in many circumstances
> or some other pre-shared information between server and client [the worst of protocols - custom bullshit])
Why is this worse than JSON?
"{'protected': {'protected': { 'protected': 'QABE' }}}" is just as custom as 66537 imo. It's easier to reverse engineer than 66537 but that's not less custom.
parent mentioned SOAP as an alternative to JSON. I was being glib about the fact that the engineer who wrote this blog post is a highly-regarded sysadmin and SRE who tinkers on things ranging from writing her own build systems to playing with RF equipment.
