Fair enough - feedback taken, we don't have a second career in comedy! Appreciate the feedback - we're renaming the post once GitHub is back online, and are adding the following to it for transparency:
> Edit: In full transparency, this blog post was originally titled "Protobuf finally has LSP support. You're Welcome." We thought this might generate some interest, but unfortunately this post sat unloved for months. Then, out of the blue, this post decided to make front page HN, and we received some choice feedback on our use of "You're Welcome" and our poor comedic abilities. Fair enough, we appreciate you speaking up - and we of course *thank you* for your continued support of our work!
Make sure to take reporting negativity bias into account. People will speak up when they don't like something, while stay quiet when everything is fine.
I, personally, enjoy Buf. It has solved many frustrations I've had with The Way it was previously done, manually installing protoc plugins, writing arcane flags into scripts nobody wants to touch, working around various quirks, like how protoc produces different output based on which directory you invoke it in, et cetera... I don't quite like the remote plugin model and rate limiting, but using local plugins is easy enough that it doesn't matter.
Buf has made my life easier, and I've actually been using `buf_ls` for a while now in NeoVim. I understand where the criticism of the title comes from, but I don't personally feel it in this particular case. In fact, I didn't even notice it.
I don't even mind the monetized properietary cloud thing, as long as Buf CLI and the related toolchain remains free software, serving the community. Hope you won't do the ol' switcharoo any time soon.
Totally, and we appreciate the sentiment. But the title was meant to be lighthearted, and instead it clearly struck a nerve. That's not our intent, and it was easy to change, so we just swallowed our pride. We rather the conversation be around Protobuf tooling, and not our poor comedy.
And the Buf CLI will always be free and OSS, don't worry!
> No clear and easy way to use it with HTTP/1.1. Neither is specific to Python.
> It seems like Google focused on gRPC, but the real prize for adoption would've been going after the simple HTTP+JSON use cases. Like an official protobuf Express middleware.
We'd flag https://connectrpc.com for you :-) HTTP/1.1 out of the box, switches on Content-Type between binary and JSON, and fully-compatible with gRPC. cURL with JSON just works.
Yea I'm aware of that. I wish you guys the best of luck. I tried a lot of this with Micro. I think it's the right direction especially if you can simplify the tooling. The hard part is just the adoption curve but I think you have a lot of funding to find your way through that.
That is for the text format, which is a serialized representation of Protobuf data. As they specify in the linked doc, it is not the format for the actual language:
> This format is distinct from the format of text within a .proto schema.
