Did... did you just call TCP "easier to implement"? I had the pleasure of writing a protocol stack or two, and TCP is... not fun. (Granted, there are less fun protocols, but it's not an experience I'd like to repeat anyways)https://twitter.com/ceejbot/status/959842582556655616 …
-
Show this thread
-
And I'd argue that being text-based is a *small* help in writing protocol implementations. (IIRC, I spent about an afternoon printing a TCP packet dumper). What matters - and what the specs consistently ignore - is a full set of test cases to validate your implementation.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @groby
Or a sufficiently formal specification to begin with. It's hard to write code generators from ASCII art. Or verify a state machine, for that matter.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @andreasdotorg
IIRC Alan Kay did just that - in his "an OS in 20k lines", part of the TCP stack was a DSL for the diagrams. (It still fails the test problem, though)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @groby
Well, without a formal semantics for the ASCII art, this isn't going to go very far. Plus, the state machine graph is missing edges, that are sort of introduced in prose. (BTDT with TCP: https://github.com/dylan-hackers/network-night-vision …)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm sometimes at awe this Internet thing is working at all.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.