D based BEEP library?

[Rob T]

On Saturday, 5 January 2013 at 19:54:11 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
> Provides no explanation for how to use it beyond linking to a 
> series of
> long-winded and poorly-formatted RFCs, plus the site doesn't 
> offer a
> clear link to any ready-to-use lib. Either of those problems 
> alone is
> enough to turn away most people.

Funny you mentioned this, because a few years back when I thought 
BEEP was a great idea, that's exactly what happened to me. I 
could not easily get a grasp on how it worked, there were not 
even any examples. What really killed it for me was the only BEEP 
library I could find was broken, and I really did not want to try 
patching it up when I did not even fully understand what it was 
supposed to be doing.

> In other words, bad marketing. Unfortunate, since it sounds 
> like a good

Try searching Google for BEEP, bad choice of name. But then we 
use "D"!

> idea upon my first glance of it (aside from its choice to use 
> XML for
> certain things, which IMO is too much of an _unnecessary_ 
> baggage for
> something as low level as BEEP.)

Yeah, XML is always a turn off for me too. JSON is better, but 
even still ...

>> Maybe people didn't get what's the power behind it and how 
>> simple you can make your life for all network related things.
>> 
>
> It may very well do that, but unfortunately, figuring out how 
> to get up
> and running with it doesn't appear to be simple at all, at least
> if you're looking at beepcore.org. That would certainly hinder 
> its
> ability to hit critical mass and really take off.
>
> I don't really get why some software engineers seem to think 
> that in
> 20xx they can write up a series of code-numbered legalese-esque
> documents (and with no formatting, and with baked-in page-breaks
> despite being in electronic format), and expect that people 
> will pay
> attention to it.
>
> It's kinda like how academic folk will write overly-convoluted 
> (almost
> patent-like) explanations, employ other forms of obfuscation 
> such as
> calling a summary or intro an "abstract" (just because some 
> outdated
> standard tells them to), stick it all into a multi-column PDF, 
> and then
> wonder why the non-academic side never bothers to pay any 
> attention.

We should though look into the mirror wrt to D. I'm not 
suggesting that D is anywhere near as dysfunctional, it is not, 
but there's plenty of room for improvements. The worse we can do 
is not think so.

--rt