[usrnm]

The golang implementation of protobuf sucked historically (still does, but is improving) and gogo was an alternative that fixed a lot of problems and was nicer overall. Until its creator burned out and deprecated it. Chasing a constantly moving target that you have no control over is very taxing in the long run.

[Intralexical]

This is concerning to hear. What do Protobufs accomplish, that requires them to be a constantly moving target?

[arccy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTIltI0NuNg

I think it's less that protobuf is a moving target, and more that gogo tried to add in all the features that google didn't want to maintain, and learned that maintaining a massive feature matrix was impossible.

[usrnm]

If I remember correctly, what finally broke the camel's back was the new API that Google introduced. But I may be wrong

[esrauch]

GoGo was not a completely separate implementation but deeply hooked into the official GoProto implementation. So it wasn't "Protobuf the binary wire format" or "Protobuf the schema language" which changed over time here, changes to the Google's Go library caused it problems. It's like building a library that integrates with Jackson (a JSON library) and Jackson details changed in ways that added toil, versus JSON changing.